Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sukhminder Singh vs Lekh Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 6 March, 2020
ITEM NO.61 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25092-25093/2019
SUKHMINDER SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
LEKH RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.160996/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 06-03-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr Prabhat Kr Chaurasia, Adv.
Mr. Anurag, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr Rajan Chaudhary, Adv.
Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to file counter affidavit.
In compliance to order dated 10.1.2020 wherein both parties i.e., petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 were directed to clarify the status of respondent no.1 before the Courts below by way of producing documents, counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that document is in the petition itself at Page 158 of the paper book where names of legal representatives of respondent no.1 are mentioned. The said page is part of order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge. Signature Not Verified
As against, ld. Counsel for the petitioner would submit Digitally signed by Anil Laxman Pansare Date: 2020.03.09 that 12:38:28 IST Reason: legal representatives mentioned above are the legal representatives of Lekh Ram and not of Ghori Devi, who is respondent no.1. She was made party to the proceeding before the -2- Item No.61 Lower Courts before as Legal representative of Lekh Ram. Her status is not yet clear before the Court. Thus he would maintain his stand that petitioner was not aware of death of respondent no.1.
To counter aforesaid submissions, counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that Ghori Devi is wife of Lekh Ram. The above submission does not really make out a case of death within the knowledge of the petitioner that Ghori Devi has expired four years back. Be that as it may, let the proceedings be continued and petitioner is accordingly directed to cure the defects.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that objection raised by the registry is that date of death of Ghori Devi is not mentioned as Death Certificate is not there. He further submits that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are legal representatives of Ghori Devi and therefore, they be directed to furnish aforesaid details. Accordingly respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to furnish copy of Death Certificate within two weeks from today. At this stage, ld. counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that he will not furnish Death Certificate of Ghori Devi. He further submits that he will only provide the date of death of Ghori Devi.
Since, counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has declined to comply Registrar Court’s order, let the matter be listed before the Hon’ble Judge in Chamber for orders.
ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Registrar