Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BEHARI versus BORAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Behari v. Borar - SECOND APPEAL No. 2010 of 1983 [2006] RD-AH 19166 (14 November 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. ( Delay Condonation ) Application No. 212980 of 2006.

(2) Civil Misc. ( Substitution ) Application No. 212981 of 2006.

       The aforementioned Substitution Application , shown at serial no. 2 above, has been filed , interalia, praying that the abatement of the Cross-Objection filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent in the Second Appeal , be set-aside, and the substitution of the  persons , as mentioned in the prayer clause of the aforementioned Substitution Application , be permitted to be made.

The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, shown at serial no. 1 above, has been filed , interalia, praying for condoning the delay in filing the aforementioned Substitution Application, shown at serial no. 2 above .

Separate Affidavits making substantially similar averments have been filed in support of the aforementioned applications.

It is, interalia, stated in the said affidavits that  the sole plaintiff-appellant and the sole defendant -respondent in the Second Appeal had died, and the Substitution Applications had been filed for bringing their respective heirs and legal representatives on record , and the said Substitution Applications were allowed by this Court on 21.3.1997.

It is , interalia, further stated in the said affidavits that the applicants in the aforementioned applications were under impression that there was no need to file Substitution Application by the heirs of the sole defendant-respondent , and, therefore, the Substitution Application could not be  filed within time; and that on 12.9.2006, it transpired that the Substitution Application should be filed in respect of the Cross-Objection filed in the Second Appeal

Further averments have been made in the affidavits regarding communication having been sent by the counsel for the defendant-respondent and the collection of details by the applicants for filing the Substitution Application .

It is, interalia, further stated in the said affidavits that due to the  facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Substitution Application could not be filed within time.

Copies of the aforementioned applications have been served in the office of Sri S.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

Sri S.K. Purwar, who has also put in appearance on the behalf of the plaintiff-appellant prays for and is granted three weeks time for filing replies to the aforementioned applications.

Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within another three weeks thereafter.

List after the expiry of the said period.

Dt. 14.11.2006

Second Appeal No. 2010 of 1981 /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.