Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAIJ NATH AHIR versus RAMOO LONIYA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baij Nath Ahir v. Ramoo Loniya - SECOND APPEAL No. 2495 of 1982 [2006] RD-AH 13600 (18 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.

Order on

Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application

No. 139349 of 2006

Case called out in the revised list. Shri V.K. Rai holding brief for Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants-applicants in the aforementioned Application, and Shri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 to 1/3, are present.

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed consequent to the death of Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no. 1/2).

It is, interalia, prayed in the aforementioned Substitution Application that the name of the said Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no. 1/2) be deleted from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and a note be made on the Memorandum of Second Appeal that the heirs and legal representatives of the said Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no. 1/2) are already on record as the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 and 1/3.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is supported by an affidavit, sworn by Jai Prakash Yadav on 9.7.2006.

It is, interalia, stated in the said affidavit that Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no. ½) died on 3.7.2006, and his heirs and legal representatives are already on record as the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 and 1/3.

The aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 14.7.2006, and was, thus, within time.

Copy of the aforementioned Substitution Application was served in the Office of Shri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 to 1/3 on 14.7.2006. However, no counter affidavit has been filed in reply to the aforementioned Substitution Application.

I have heard Shri V.K. Rai holding brief for Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants-applicants and Shri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 to 1/3, and perused the record.

Having regard to the averments made in the aforementioned Substitution Application and its accompanying affidavit and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed in reply to the aforementioned Substitution Application, I am of the opinion that the aforementioned Substitution Application deserves to be allowed.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is accordingly allowed.

Let the name of the said Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no.1/2) be struck-off from the array of parties in the Memorandum of Second Appeal, and a note be made that the said Ganga (plaintiff-respondent no. 1/2) died on 3.7.2006, and his heirs and legal representatives are already on record as the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1/1 and 1/3.

Let necessary amendments be made within four weeks.

List for hearing thereafter.

Dt. 18.8.2006

Safi (S.A. 2495/1982)


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.