Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PURANMASI & ANOTHER versus SITA SARAN & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Puranmasi & Another v. Sita Saran & Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 2812 of 1983 [2006] RD-AH 13224 (8 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.S.P.Mehrotra J.

(1) Civil Misc. ( Substitution ) Application No. 2921 of 1988 (dated 2.5.1988).

(2) Civil Misc. ( Delay Condonation ) Application No. 2922 of 1988( dated 2.5.1988).

       Perused the Office Report dated 7.8.2006 in regard to service of notices issued on the aforementioned applications pursuant to the order dated 31.8.1988.

In view of the said Office Report dated 7.8.2006, service of notices on the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the respondent no. 1, sought  to be substituted as the respondent nos.1/1 and ½ respectively, as well as service of notice on the defendant-respondent no.2, are held to be sufficient.

List the aforementioned Applications as well as Civil Misc. Application No. 4484 of 1989 (dated 24.7.1989) for consideration after four weeks.

As regards service of notices issued to the defendants-appellants nos. 1 and 2 to engage another counsel pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2005 read with the order dated 8.3.2006, the office has  reiterated in the said Office Report  dated 7.8.2006, its  earlier Office Report dated 25.7.2006.

The said Office Report dated 25.7.2006, interalia, states that neither Undelivered Registered Covers nor Acknowledgement Due Cards in regard to the  notices issued to the defendants-appellants nos. 1 and 2 to engage another counsel, have been received back, nor has any Vakalatnama been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants nos. 1 and 2.

In view of the said Office Report, service of notices on the defendants -appellants nos. 1 and 2 to engage another counsel, is deemed to be sufficient.

The case will now be listed after four weeks, as mentioned above.

dt. 8.8.2006/ Second Appeal No. 2812 of 1983/aks.

Hon.S.P.Mehrotra J.

Civil Misc. ( Substitution ) Application No. 57531 of 1995( dated 20.10.1995)

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been  filed consequent to the death of Smt. Ram Kali  (defendant-respondent no. 1) .

Perused the Office Report dated 10.7.2006/ 7.8.2006 [ Item No. (i)] in regard to service of notice on the aforementioned Substitution Application .

In view of the said Office Report, service of notice on the proposed heir and legal representative of the said Smt. Ram Kali ( defendant -respondent no. 1) , namely, Shiv Darshan S/o. Ram Deo , is held to be sufficient.

It may be mentioned that Sri A.K. Jaiswal, Advocate, has already put-in appearance on behalf of  the said Shiv Darsharn S/o. Ram Deo , and has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 5072 of 1996( dated 30.1.1996).

Civil Misc. ( Substitution ) Application No. 5875 of 2001(dated 18.1.2001).

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed consequent to the death of Virendra Prasad ( defendant-respondent no. 2).

Sri S.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the plaintiffs -appellants prays for and is granted four weeks' time for taking requisite steps for issuance of notices on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

Notices will be issued to the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Virendra Prasad  (defendant-respondent no. 2) by Registered Post A.D., fixing 21.12.2006.

In case, the requisite steps are not taken within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the case will be listed before the Court under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court immediately on the expiry of the said period.

Civil Mise. ( Substitution ) Application No. 57554 of 1995 ( dated 20.10.1995).

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed on behalf of  Shiv Mangal Prasad  Jaiswal and others consequent to the death of  Smt.Ram Kali ( defendant-respondent no. 1) .

In view of the Office Report dated 10.7.2006/7.8.2006 ( Item No. ii) in respect of the aforementioned application, the case is directed to be listed under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court after four weeks.

List after four weeks.

dt. 8.8.2006/ Second Appeal No. 2122 of 1983/aks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.