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 Defendant-respondent-Substutiton Application Dismissed U/Ch XII R4-Second Appeal Dismissed As Abated.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Mata Sevak Vs. Sarju Prasad. On 30/03/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SECOND APPEAL NO. 2772 OF 1983.
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48

Second Appeal No. 2772 Of 1983
Mata Sewak...........................................Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
Shri Sarju Prasad.................................Defendant-Respondent.
***
Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.
List Has Been Revised.
Learned Counsel For The Applicants In Civil Misc. Application No. 96111 Of 2002 And Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 96112 Of 2002 Is Not Present.
Pursuant To The Order Dated 1-12-2005, 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 Applications In Taking Requisite Steps For Issuance Of Notice, Pursuant To The Order Dated 1-12-2005 Passed On The Aforementioned Applications.
Even Though The Case Is Listed Today Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court, Requisite Steps Have Not Been Taken By The Learned Counsel For The Applicants In The Aforementioned Applications.
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 Applications For Want Of Prosecution Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court.
The Aforementioned Applications, Namely, Civil Misc. Application No. 96111 Of 2002 And Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 96112 Of 2002 Are, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Under Chapter XII, Rule 4 Of The Rules Of The Court.
It May Be Noted That The Aforementioned Applications Have Been Filed Consequent To The Death Of Sarju Prasad (defendant-respondent).
In View Of The Dismissal Of The Aforementioned Applications, The Appeal As Against The Said Sarju Prasad (defendant-respondent) Stands Abated.
The Said Sarju Prasad Was The Sole Defendant-respondent. Consequently, The Second Appeal Stands Dismissed, As Having Abated.

Go to Navigation