RSA No. 128 of 2017. Case: Jai Kishan and Ors. Vs Mehar Chand and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberRSA No. 128 of 2017
Party NameJai Kishan and Ors. Vs Mehar Chand and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Aman Deep Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Neeraj Gupta, Advocate
JudgesSureshwar Thakur, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateApril 11, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

  1. Heard. Considering the grounds meted in the application qua the applicants thereupon being deterred to move this Court within time for filing an appeal here before against the impugned judgments and decree, hence delay, stands satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the apposite delay stands condoned. Application allowed.

    Be registered.

    CMP (M) No. 2144 of 2016.

  2. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the instant application. Permission granted. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

    CMP(M) No. 8504 of 2016.

  3. In the afore-stated CMP, an unfoldment occurs qua demise of respondent No. 30 Smt. Bhago Devi occurring on 25.12.2012, demise of co-respondent No. 38 Jai Devi occurring on 7.8.2006, demise of co-respondent No. 50 Nardu Devi occurring on 17.10.2007 and the demise of co-respondent No. 51 Smt. Prarti Devi occurring on 8.10.2007. Apparently, the demise of co-respondent No. 30 Bhago Devi occurred during the pendency of the apposite civil appeal before the learned Appellate Court, whereas the demise of co-respondent(s) No. 38, 50 and 51 respectively occurred during the pendency of the Civil Suit before the learned trial Court. However, through the instant application, the applicants strive to constrain this Court for ordering qua the deletion of the name(s) of the aforesaid deceased co-respondents from the apposite array, significantly when their estates stand already sufficiently represented, comprised in their proposed LRs. standing already arrayed in the apposite array of co-respondent(s). The aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants remains unopposed by the counsel for the respondents. Cumulatively, the effect of all the evident factum aforesaid, of demise of correspondent No. 30 Bhago Devi even if occurring before the learned First Appellate Court also the respective demise(s) of co-respondents No. 38, 50 and 51 even if occurring during the pendency of the Civil Suit before the learned trial Court, stirs the counsel for the respondents to espouse qua dehors the factum qua on their respective demise(s) thereat besides theirs not standing ordered to be substituted by their respective LRs, to, yet not work as a constraint upon this Court, to, order for the deletion of their names from the apposite array of respondents, reiteratedly when their respective estates stand sufficiently represented, comprised in their legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial