Himachal Pradesh High Court
RFA/382/2016 on 25 August, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
RFA No. 382 of 2016 .
25.08.2020 Present: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the appellant- State.
Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 6.
Through Video Conferencing CMP No. 6251 of 2020 By way of instant application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicants No. 1 to 4, for deletion of name of respondent No.2, namely, Prema, who has expired and to substitute them as respondents No. 2(i) to 2(iv) in place of deceased respondent No.2. Besides above, applicants/ respondents No. 5 and 6, have prayed for their impleadment as respondent No.7 and 8, since they had purchased the land from respondents No. 4 to 6, namely Dharam Pal, Sher Singh and Ramdei. Despite repeated opportunities non-applicants/ appellants have failed to file reply as such, this Court is left with no option, but to decide the application on the basis of material available on record.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as the documents annexed ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2020 20:19:05 :::HCHP with the application this Court finds that that .
respondent No.2, namely Prema, has expired on 10.11.2013, as is evident from Death Certificate, Annexure A-1, leaving behind his LRs as detailed in legal heir certificate, Annexure A-2. Since right to sue survives in favour of the persons proposed to be substituted in place of respondent No.2, this Court sees no impediment in accepting prayer made in the application, therefore, the same is allowed and applicant/ respondents No. 1 to 4 are ordered to be substituted in place of deceased respondent No.2 (Prema) whose name is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
3. This Court further finds from the pleadings as well as documents annexed with the application that applicants/respondents No. 5 to 6 namely Pawan Kumar and Shravan Kumar, had purchased some share of land, which subsequently came to be acquired for the purpose of construction Kuhal Kattal- Dabour link road, from respondents No. 4 to 6 of the main appeal and as such, they have filed application praying for their impleadment as respondents No. 7 and 8 in the main appeal. A perusal of affidavit executed by respondents No. 4 to 6, clearly substantiate the factum with regard to purchase of land by applicants/ ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2020 20:19:05 :::HCHP respondents No. 5 and 6 from the aforesaid .
respondents i.e., respondents No. 4 to 6 in the main appeal. While admitting the factum with regard to sale of land, applicants/ respondents No. 4 to 6, have executed affidavits in the support of averments contained in the application.
4. Consequently, in view of the affidavits executed by respondents No. 4 to 6, in the main appeal, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of applicants/respondents No. 5 and 6 and as such they are ordered to be arrayed as applicants/respondents No. 7 and 8 in the main appeal.
5. The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties on the basis of amended memo of parties, annexed with the application. Since the persons ordered to be substituted and impleaded in the application are being represented by Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, there is no necessity to issue notice to them.
CMP No. 6252 of 20206. Last opportunity of one week is granted to the non-applicants/ respondents to file reply, failing which, ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2020 20:19:05 :::HCHP this Court shall be constrained to decide the application .
on the basis of material already available on record.
List on 08.09.2020.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
25th August, 2020
Pritam
r to
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2020 20:19:05 :::HCHP