Partly allowed

Nand Lal and others v. Sikandar and another

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2024CMP.M/145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CMP(M) No.145/2024, the court condoned delay for an applicant lacking control over circumstances. In CMPST No.3755/2024, it discharged a guardian allowing a major applicant to prosecute independently. CMPST No.3754/2024 was dismissed as infructuous due to record existence.

What did the court decide?

Delay in CMP(M) No.145/2024 was condoned. In CMPST No.3755/2024, the guardian was discharged and the applicant permitted to prosecute. CMPST No.3754/2024 was disposed of as infructuous.

Nand Lal and others Vs Sikandar and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Nand Lal & Ors vs. Sikandar & Ors.

¶2

CMP(M) No. 145 of 2024

¶3

8.04.2024

¶4

Present: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶5

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶6

CMP(M) No. 145 of 2024

¶7

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limittion Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay. Pursuant to notices issued in the application, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1 . He fairly states that he does not intend to file reply to the application and shall have no objection in case the same is allowed.

¶8

Having perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that the delay in maintaining the application is neither willful nor intentional, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of applicant and as such delay in filing the appeal at hand is condoned.

¶9

FAO No.,..................2024

¶10

Be registered.

¶11

Admit.

¶12

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate appears and waives service of post admission notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Separate notice be issued to respondent 2, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within one week.

¶13

Record be called.

¶14

CMPST No. 3755 of 2024

¶15

By way of instant application under Order 32 Rule 12 C.P.C , prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/appellant No.2 Miss Rekha Devi to discharge her guardian and allow her to prosecute the case in her own capacity. Having perused the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit , this Court is convenced and satisfied that Ms. Rekha Devi has attained majority and as such, she is entitled to prosecute the case in her own capacity.

¶16

Consequently, in view of above, present application is allowed and non applicant No.1 Sh. Sikander is discharged from the duty of guardianship of appellant No.2, who is further permitted to prosecute the case at hand in her own capacity. Application stands disposed of.

¶17

CMPST No. 3754 of 2024

¶18

Since certified copy of award passed by learned Motor Accident Clims Tribunal has already been placed on record. present application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of.

¶19

April 8, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (veena) Judge

Nand Lal and others v. Sikandar and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Lal and others v. Sikandar and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Tikkam Ram Vs Yusus Khan

Dev Raj Vs Yusus Khan

Virender Singh Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Ravinder Singh Ravi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hpnlu Vs Hpstate Information Commission