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 -Sole Plaintiff-appellant Dead-Substitution Application Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution. Second Appeal Dismissed As Abated.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Yadgar Husain Vs. Jais Mohd. On 31/07/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SECOND APPEAL NO. 1600 OF 1985.
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48
Second Appeal No. 1600 Of 1985
Yadgar Husain Vs. Jais Mohd. And Others


Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

It Appears That Civil Misc. ( Substitution ) Application No. 2347 Of 1993 ( Dated 30.4.1993) Was Filed On Behalf Of The Proposed Heirs And Legal Representatives Of Yadgar Husain ( Plaintiff-appellant) For Being Substituted In Place Of The Said Yadgar Husain( Plaintiff-appellant) Consequent To The Death Of The Said Yadgar Husain (plaintiff-appellant).
By The Order Dated 30.4.1993 Passed By The Joint Registrar On The Aforementioned Substitution Application, Notices Were Directed To Be Issued On The Aforementioned Substitution Application.
The Office Submitted Its Report Dated 22.12.2005/12.1.2006 To The Effect That The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Had Not Taken Steps To Serve The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2.
By The Order Dated 3.3.2006, The Court Granted One Week's Time To The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application To Take Requisite Steps For Service On The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2.
Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 3.3.2006, The Office Submitted Its Report Dated 23.3.2006 To The Effect That The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Had Not Taken Requisite Steps For Issuance Of Notices To The Defendants-respondents Nos.1 And 2.
By The Order Dated 24.3.2006, The Court Directed The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application To Serve The Copy Of The Said Application Upon The Learned Counsel For The Defendants -respondents Nos. 1 And 2 Within One Week.
On 10.7.2006, The Case Was Listed Before The Court . On Prayer Made On The Said Date, I.e. , 10.7.2006 On Behalf Of Sri M.A. Qadeer, Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application, The Case Was Directed To Be Listed After Two Weeks So As To Enable Sri Qadeer To Obtain Instructions In The Matter.
The Case Was, Thereafter, Listed Before The Court On 24.7.2006. On The Said Date, I.e., 24.7.2006, The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Was Not Present, Even When , The Case Was Taken -up In The Revised List.
As It Was Not Clear As To Whether The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Had Served Copy Of The Aforementioned Substitution Application Upon The Learned Counsel For The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2 , As Directed By The Said Order Dated 24.3.2006, The Court , By Its Order Dated 24.7.2006, Directed The Case To Be Listed Before The Court Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court In View Of The Said Office Report Dated 23.3.2006.
Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 24.7.2006, The Case Is Listed Today Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court.
The Office Has Submitted Its Report Dated 27.7.2006.
A Perusal Of The Said Report Shows That The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Has Not Taken Requisite Steps For Issuance Of Notices To The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2 Pursuant To The Order Dated 30.4.1993 Passed By The Joint Registrar.
The Case Has Been Taken-up Today In The Revised List.
Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Is Not Present. As Such, It Is Not Possible To Verify As To Whether The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application Has Served Copy Of The Aforementioned Substitution Application Upon The Learned Counsel For The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2, As Directed By The Said Order Dated 24.3.2006.
Requisite Steps For Issuance Of Notices To The Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 And 2, As Noted Above, Have Not Been Taken By The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Substitution Application, Even Though, The Case Is Listed Today Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court.
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 .
Accordingly, The Aforementioned Substitution Application Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court.
The Aforementioned Substitution Application, As Mentioned Above, Has Been Filed Consequent To The Death Of The Said Yadgar Husain ( Plaintiff-appellant).
In View Of The Dismissal Of The Aforementioned Substitution Application For Want Of Prosecution, The Second Appeal At The Instance Of The Said Yadgar Husain ( Plaintiff-appellant) , Stands Abated.
The Said Yadgar Husain Was The Sole Plaintiff-appellant In The Second Appeal . Therefore, The Second Appeal Stands Dismissed As Having Abated

Go to Navigation