Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATYA NARAIN versus CHANGAR SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satya Narain v. Changar Singh - SECOND APPEAL No. 2468 of 1982 [2006] RD-AH 6968 (30 March 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

Court No. 48

Second Appeal No. 2468 of 1982

Satya Narain since deceased and another......Plaintiffs-appellants

Versus

Changer Singh and others.................Defendants-Respondents.

***  

Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

Case called out in the revised list.

Learned counsel for the applicants in Civil Misc.(Substitution) Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2-12-1987) is not present.

Pursuant to the order dated 9th March, 2006, the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court on account of failure on the part of the learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Substitution Application in taking requisite steps for issuance of notice, pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 1987 passed by the Joint Registrar on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken on behalf of the applicants for issuance of notice on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

Further, none is present on behalf of the applicants even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.

In the circumstances, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the aforementioned Substitution Application for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

The aforementioned Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2-12-1987) is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

It may be noted that the aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed consequent to the death of Vishwanath, son of Satya Narain (plaintiff-appellant).

It is further note-worthy that Satya Narain (plaintiff-appellant No.1 had expired during the pendency of the Second Appeal, and in his place, the name of his said son Vishwanath was substituted as his sole heir and legal representative, pursuant to the order dated 24th January, 1985 passed on Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. Nil of 1982 (Dated 10-11-1982).

Thus, the said Vishwanath, son of Satya Narain remained on the record as the sole plaintiff-appellant.

As noted above, the aforementioned Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2-12-1987) has been filed consequent to the death of the said Vishwanath.

In view of the dismissal of the aforementioned Substitution Application, the Appeal at the instance of the said Vishweanth stands abated.

As the said Vishwanath remained the sole plaintiff-appellant on the record, the Second Appeal stands dismissed, as having abated.

Dt. 30-03-2006/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.