Petitioner challenged the appellate court's order permitting substituted service by publication for legal heirs of deceased respondents in a pending civil appeal. The court found no infirmity, noting publication was as mandated under Order V Rule 20(1-A) CPC, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:163720
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10754 of 2024
Petitioner :- Hazarat Maulana Ahmad Ali Society Respondent :- Nagar Palika Parishad Devband And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Tabish Sheikh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner before this Court was one of the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.101 of 1998 which was decreed by trial Court. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Nagar Palika Parishad, Devband, Saharanpur filed an appeal before the District Judge, which is pending consideration.
During pendency of the Civil Appeal No.80 of 2022, some of the plaintiff-respondents have died. It appears that a substitution application was moved in which notices were issued to the legal heirs of contesting respondents which could not be served. An application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service has been filed. The Court below by order impugned dated 11.07.2024 had allowed the said application for substituted service through publication.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared for one of the contesting respondents in the appeal, submits that the order dated 11.07.2024 could not be passed by the Court below as the substitution was not carried out.
This Court finds that this writ petition is highly misconceived and argument raised at bar by the petitioner counsel has no legs to
stand. It is the application which was moved under Order V Rule 20 for service of notice of substitution application upon the legal heirs of the contesting respondents who have not appeared in the appeal.
From the perusal of said order, I find that there is no infirmity as the publication has been directed in newspapers as mandated under Order V Rule 20 (1-A) CPC.
Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.10.2024 SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Was the order dated 11.07.2024 allowing substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC valid despite substitution not being carried out?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hazarat Maulana Ahmad Ali Society
Nagar Palika Parishad Devband
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
