Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KISHROE versus GIRJA SHANKAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kishroe v. Girja Shankar - SECOND APPEAL No. 1160 of 1985 [2006] RD-AH 15786 (11 September 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

11-09-2006 Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.  

Case called out in the revised list.

Learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant is not present.

Sri S.B. Singh holding brief for Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent is present.

Civil Misc.(Substitution) Application No. 93435 of 2001.  

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed, inter-alia, praying that the name of Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) be deleted from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and the names of his two sons, namely, Vinod Chand and Janardan Sahai be substituted as his heirs and legal representatives.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is accompanied by an Affidavit, sworn on 7th November, 2001.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Affidavit that the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) died on 9th August, 2001 leaving behind his two sons, namely, Vinod Chand and Janardan Sahai as his heirs and legal representatives.

The aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 7th November, 2001.

By the order dated 7th November, 2001 passed by the Joint Registrar, notices were directed to be issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

The Office Report dated 1st July, 2006 shows that the notices, issued to the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) by Ordinary Process, have been served, and Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent).

No Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent), as is evident from the said Office Report dated 1st July, 2001. Sri S.B. Singh holding brief for Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) states that the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) have no objection to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

As mentioned above, the said Girja Shankar  (plaintiff-respondent) died on 9th August, 2001, while the aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 7th November, 2001. Thus, the aforementioned Substitution Application was filed within time.

There is no opposition to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is, accordingly, allowed.

Let the name of Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) be struck off from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and in his place, the names of the aforementioned Vinod Chand and Janardan Sahai, whose details are given in paragraph 2 of the Affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Substitution  Application, be substituted as the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1/1 and 1/2, respectively.

Let necessary amendments be made within eight weeks.

Civil Msic. (Substitution) Application No. 18687 of 2003.

The aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed, inter-alia, praying that the names of the heirs and legal representatives of Ram Kishor (defendant-appellant), as mentioned in the Prayer Clause of the aforementioned Substitution Application, be substituted in place of the said Ram Kishor (defendant-appellant) in the array of parties in the Second Appeal.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is accompanied by an Affidavit, sworn on 27th January, 2003.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Affidavit that the said Ram Kishor (defendant-appellant) died on 1-12-2002 leaving behind his sons, namely, Krishna Mohan Tiwari, Devi Prasad Tiwari, Shanti Swarup Tiwari, Panna Lal Tiwari and Umesh Chandra Tiwari as his heirs and legal representatives.

The aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 28-1-2003.

By the order dated 28-1-2003 passed by the Registrar, notices were directed to be issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

The Office has submitted its Report dated 1st July, 2006 in regard to service of notices issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application, pursuant to the said order dated 28-1-2003.

It is evident from the said Office Report dated 1st July, 2006 that the notices, issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application by Ordinary Process to the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent, have been served, and Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey has put in appearance on behalf of the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent.

It may be mentioned that by the above order passed on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 93435 of 2001, the proposed heirs and legal representatives of Girja Shankar (plaintiff-respondent) have been substituted as the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1/1 and 1/2.    

No Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 in reply to the aforementioned Substitution Application, as is evident from the Office Report dated 1st July, 2006.

Sri S.B. Singh holding brief for Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 states that the plaintiffs- respondents Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 have no objection to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

As mentioned above, the said Ram Kishor (defendant-appellant) expired on 1-12-2002, and the aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 28-1-2003. Thus, the aforementioned Substation Application was filed within time.

There is no opposition to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

The aforementioned Substitution Application is, accordingly, allowed.

Let the name of Ram Kishor (defendant-appellant) be struck off from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and in his place, the names of the aforementioned heirs and legal representatives, namely, Krishna Mohan Tiwari, Devi Prasad Tiwari, Shanti Swarup Tiwari, Panna Lal Tiwari and Umesh Chandra Tiwari, whose details are given in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Substitution Application as well as in the Prayer Clause of the aforementioned Substitution Application, be substituted as the defendants-appellants Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5, respectively.

Let necessary amendments be made within eight weeks.

List thereafter, with Office Report regarding status of the Second Appeal.

Second Appeal No. 1160 of 85/AK


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.