IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
M.A. No.359 of 2007
MOST.BIBI RIPAL
Versus
MD.SAHEED & ORS.
****
/7/ 28 September The learned counsel for the appellant contends
2010
that during the pendency of this memo of appeal respondent
no. 6 died and for which a substitution petition was filed.
However, the substitution petition was heard and by order,
dated 14.05.2010, it was ordered that the heirs of deceased
respondent no. 6 be substitution, but, neither the name of
respondent no. 6 has been deleted nor the heirs have been
substituted in the memo of appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
during the hearing of appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the
Civil Procedure Code an order has been passed on
30.08.2010 to issue notice to the respondents though the
appellant has complied the order, but, by mistake has filed
requisites against respondent no. 6 and not against the heirs
of respondent no. 6, hence, the office is directed to make
necessary correction in memo of appeal in pursuance of the
order, dated 14.05.2010, and the appellant is directed to file
requisites against the substitution heirs of respondent no. 6
as per the petition for substitution. The requisites must be
filed within two weeks under registered cover with A/D as
well as under ordinary process.
( Gopal Prasad, J. )
S.A.