Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PREMLATA versus SUB DIVISIOANAL OFFICER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Premlata v. Sub Divisioanal Officer & Others - WRIT - C No. 44742 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 4196 (12 March 2007)

 

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

12-03-2007 Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

Order on

1-Civil Misc.(Delay Condonation) Application No.249560  of     2005.

2-Civil Misc.(Substitution) Application No.249562 of 2005.

Pursuant to the order dated 28th February, 2007, the case is listed today.

The aforementioned Applications have been filed consequent to the death of Daya Ram (Respondent No.2).

It is,  inter-alia, stated in the Affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Applications that the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2) died on 17th May, 2005 leaving behind the persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said Affidavit, as his  heirs and legal representatives. The said persons are also mentioned in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Substitution Application, show at Serial No. 2 above.

The reasons for the delay in filing the Substitution Application and the Application for  setting aside the abatement of the Writ Petition have been stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said Affidavit.

The aforementioned Applications were filed on 22nd December, 2005.

By the order dated 28th February, 2007, the notices were directed to to be issued on the aforementioned Applications to the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2).

As the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2) had already put in appearance through their counsel S/Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma and Shyam Kinker Pandey, the Court by the said order dated 28th February, 2007, permitted that copies of the aforementioned Applications be served on the said learned counsel appearing for the proposed  heirs and legal representatives of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2).

Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the directions given in the said order dated 28th February, 2007,  copies  of the aforementioned Applications have been served on the learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2).

Sri Shyam Kinker Pandey, learned counsel for the proposed heirs and  legal representatives  of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2), is present.

Sri Pandey states that the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2) have no objection to the aforementioned Applications being allowed.

In view of the above, it is evident that the said Daya Ram (Respondent No.2) died on 17th May, 2005 while the aforementioned Applications were filed on 22nd December, 2005.

Reasons  for the delay in filing the aforesaid Applications have been explained in the Affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Applications.

There is no opposition to the aforementioned Applications. Therefore, the averments made in the aforementioned Applications and their accompanying Affidavit remain uncontroverted.

In the circumstances, the aforementioned Applications deserve to be allowed.

Accordingly, the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, shown at Serial No. 1 above, is allowed.

The delay in filing the Substitution Application and the Application for setting aside  the abatement of the Writ Petition  is condoned.

The abatement of the Writ Petition is set aside.

The aforementioned Substitution Application, shown at Serial No. 2 above, is allowed.

Let the name of the said Daya Ram (Respondent No. 2) be struck off from the array of parties in the Writ Petition, and in  his place, the names of the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Substitution Application, shown at Serial No. 2 above, be substituted as the Respondents Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 2/3. 2/4, 2/5, 2/6, 2/7 and 2/8, respectively.

Let necessary amendments be made within three weeks.

List thereafter.

Writ Petition No. 44742 of 2000/AK/L.


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.