IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.215 of 1985
Rajendra Pd. & Ors.
Versus
Ramanand Pd. & Ors.
----------------------------------
18. 21.11.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on
the interlocutory application No.1686 of 2001 and I.A.
No.1687 of 2001.
I.A. No.1686 of 2011 is a substitution
application. Because of delay in filing this substitution
application, a separate limitation application has been
filed which has been numbered as I.A. No.1687 of
2001.
The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant No.1, namely, Rajendra
Prasad, was doing pairvy in this appeal who was posted
as B.D.O. at Rajnagar Block, Madhubani and the
appellant No.3 was residing in village Barmain and,
therefore, the appellant No.1 had no knowledge about
his death. After his retirement, when he came to
village, he learned that appellant No.3 had died and
then he filed this substitution application in 2001.
Thereafter, the appellant No.1 also died. According to
the learned counsel, the said appellant No.1 retired on
30.06.2001. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the delay, if any, is liable to be
condoned. Although copy has been served on the
-2-
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Nobody appeared to object the prayer made on behalf
of the appellant.
In view of the above facts and the explanation
given in the limitation application, I am satisfied that
the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
not filing the substitution application within time.
Accordingly, the interlocutory application No.1687 of
2001 is allowed, the delay is condoned, abatement is
set aside and the substitution application, i.e. I.A.
No.1686 of 2001 is allowed. The legal representatives
of the deceased appellant No.3 as mentioned in detail in
paragraph 2 of the substitution application are
substituted in place of the appellant No.3. All of them
have appeared by filing Vakalatnama.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on
the interlocutory application No.1688 of 2001.
This application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for expunging the name of the respondent
No.6 to 20. Prayer is allowed and the name of
respondent No.6 to 20 are expunged from cause title of
memo of appeal at the risk of the appellant.
Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)