Jharkhand High Court
Amir Chand Singh & Ors vs Ugani Devi & Ors on 5 September, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 189 of 2007
------
Amir Chand Singh & Ors. .... .... .... Appellants Versus Ugani Devi & Ors. .... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate
------
Order No.09 Dated- 05.09.2022 I.A. No.394 of 2022 with I.A. No.393 of 2022 Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that Interlocutory Application no.394 of 2022 has been filed with a prayer to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi who died on 16.07.2014 leaving behind her only one legal representative whose name, parentage and address has been mentioned in para-8 of the instant interlocutory application. It is further submitted that in this interlocutory application, prayer has also been made for deletion of the name of the deceased respondent no.2 - Budh Ram Singh who was the husband of the respondent no.1 and he died leaving behind the common legal representative whose name, parentage and address has been mentioned in para-8 of the instant interlocutory application.
It is next submitted that Interlocutory Application no. 393 of 2022 has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the petition for substitution and setting aside the abatement, if any. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the appellants were not aware about the death of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 immediately after their death, hence, the petition for substitution could not be filed within time. It is then submitted that the delay in filing the petition for substitution is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that unless the delay is condoned and the abatement, if any, is set aside and the prayer to substitute the only one legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi as respondent no. 1 (a) is allowed, the appellants will be highly prejudiced.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the only one legal representative of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi as respondent no. 1 (a) is condoned and the abatement, if any, is set aside and the prayer to substitute the only one legal representative of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi whose name, parentage and address has been mentioned in para-8 of the interlocutory application no. 394 of 2022 is allowed as respondent no. 1 (a).
Registry is directed to incorporate the name, parentage and addresses of the said only one legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi as respondent no. 1 (a) in the cause title of the appeal memo with red ink and mention the word "Dead" against the name of the deceased respondent no.1 - Ugni Devi and deceased respondent no.2 -Budh Ram Singh.
Both the interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No.189 of 2007 Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul has filed power on behalf of the respondent no. 1(a).
The learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to advance argument on the merits of the appeal.
Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after two weeks.
Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)