Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

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 at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Second Appeal Contesting Plaintiffs-respondents Expired-Substitution Application Not Filed-Second Appeal Dismissed As Abated.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Smt.Sham Sundri And Another Vs. Ram Nandan And Others. On 05/09/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SECOND APPEAL NO. 677 OF 1981
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 19
Second Appeal No. 677 Of 1981
Smt. Shyan Sundari And Another........................Defendants-Appellants
Versus
Ram Nandan And Others..................................Plaintiffs-Respondents.
******
Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.
It Appears That Civil Misc. (Abatement) Application No. 54825 Of 1995 Has Been Filed On Behalf Of Deena Nath Prasad, Stated To Be The Son Of The Deceased Ram Nandan (plaintiff-respondent No. 1).
The Aforesaid Application Is Accompanied By An Affidavit, Sworn On 1st October, 1995.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In The Said Affidavit That The Contesting Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3 Had Died Long Back ; And That The Defendants-appellants Have Not Taken Any Steps To Bring On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3 ; And That In The Circumstances, The Entire Second Appeal Be Dismissed As Having Abated.
Copy Of The Aforesaid Application Has Been Served On Sri M.P. Sinha, Learned Counsel For The Defendants-appellants On 11th October, 1995,
Sri M.P. Sinha, Learned Counsel For The Defendants-appellants States That Despite Repeated Communications Having Been Sent To The Defendants-appellants, The Defendants-appellants Have Not Contacted Him For Giving Instructions In The Matter.
It Is Thus Apparent That No Substitution Application Has Been Filed.
From The Averments Made In The Affidavit Accompanying The Aforesaid Application, It Is Evident That The Contesting Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3 Have Expired Long Back. No Substitution Application Appears To Have Been Filed On Behalf Of The Defendants-appellants For Bringing On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3.
Therefore, The Second Appeal Stands Abated As Against The Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3.
The Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 And 3 Are The Only Respondents In The Second Appeal.
Therefore, The Second Appeal Stands Dismissed, As Having Abated.

Go to Navigation