Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Kailash Chandra Agrawal vs Sitaram Agrawal & Ors. on 12 November, 2014
First Appeal No.105/2005
12.11.2014 Shri Rakesh Jain, counsel for the appellant.
Shri J.P.Dhimole, counsel for the respondents
No.3.
Heard on various interlocutory applications relating to death of respondent No.1.
Notices were issued to the legal representatives of respondent No.1.
Notices were served to the legal representatives of the respondent No.1. Notices were served to all the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 except legal representative No.(v).
Legal representative has refused to accept the notice and it should be presumed to be served.
It appears that the respondent No.1 has expired and since the application could not be filed in time, therefore, application for condonation of delay as well as application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC has been filed.
None of the legal representatives are represented to contest the applications and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has no much objection on the applications, applications are allowed.
Abatement of appeal is hereby set aside. Delay in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC is hereby condoned.
Application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC is hereby allowed. Names of legal representatives No.1 to 7 be inserted in the memo of appeal as Respondents No.1 (i) to 1 (vii).
Amendment in the memo of appeal be done within 7 days and thereafter, notice of this appeal be issued to the respondent No.1 (i) to 1 (vii), returnable within four weeks by ordinary method as well as by RAD. PF shall be furnished within 7 days.
Case be listed for further orders after four weeks of issuance of notice.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra