IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FA No. 333 of 2001
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS
Versus
PANNA LAL & ORS
-----------
11. 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants on I.A. No. 2604 of 2006.
This application has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for substitution of legal representatives of the
deceased appellant No.1(a) after setting aside the abatement
and condoning the delay, if any.
Considering the explanation given in the application
for not filing the substitution application within time, I am
satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient
cause from not filing the substitution application within time.
Accordingly, abatement is set aside and the substitution
application is allowed. The legal representatives as
mentioned in detail in paragraph 2 of the substitution
application are substituted in place of appellant No.1(a). The
heirs have already appeared by filing their vakalatnama. The
minors are appearing under the guardianship of their mother.
A separate affidavit has been filed in support of the fact that
the legal guardian has no adverse interest to that of the
minors.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No.
4670 of 2006.
2
This application has been filed for expunging the
name of respondent No.5 on the ground that the legal
representatives of the respondent No.5 are already on record
as appellants because he died issueless.
In view of the above facts, the application is
allowed and the name of respondent No.5 is expunged from
the cause title of the memo of appeal. So far item No.3 of
office note dated 22.9.2010 is concerned, the vakalatnama in
question is ignored. Learned counsel Sri Kinkar Kumar
submitted that he will file fresh vakalatnama within ten days.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)
S.S.