Court admitted an urgency application to prepone the hearing date because the petitioner had expired and legal heirs needed to be brought on record as substitution was pending.
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 825/2022 Date: 13.02.2023
Mahabir Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Present: Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the applicant, Shri Avinash Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Praveen Dwivedi, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the urgency application being I.A. No. 107/2023, wherein it has been stated that the I.A. No. 108/2023 being substitution application and I.A. no. 106/2023 being delay condonation application have been filed. It is contended that the appellant no. 1-Mahabir Singh has expired and his legal heirs are to be brought on record, therefore, the date already fixed in the case for 19.04.2023 may be preponed so that necessary action for substitution may be taken.
For the reason stated in the urgency application, the same is allowed and the date already fixed for 19.04.2023 is preponed to 28.02.2023.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Mahabir Singh
Punjab National Bank
Justice R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
