Allowed

Nirpat Ram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC2 May 2017C.M.P./405/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 and Section 152 CPC, the Court substituted the legal heirs of two deceased petitioners in a pending civil appeal. The delay in filing the application was condoned, and the petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Arjun Ram and Mitni Devi substituted as legal heirs in F.A. No.609 of 2006.

Nirpat Ram and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.405 of 2015

¶2

Nirpat Ram & Ors. ………..Petitioners

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

¶5

……….Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶7

---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : J.C. to SC II -----------

¶8

06/Dated:02.05.2017

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he shall remove the defect Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 8, 9 & 11, as pointed out by the office, in course of day and so far defect Nos.5, 6 & 10 are concerned the same may be ignored.

¶10

2. Office to check and verify. Defect No.5, 6 and 10 are ignored for the time being.

¶11

3. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 & 9 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substitution of legal heirs/representatives of petitioner/appellant Nos.1 & 3 namely, Nirpat Ram and Mathura Ram, who died on 19.12.2009 and 18.07.2011 respectively. Respondent No.1 died leaving behind his son namely, Arjun Ram and respondent No.3 died leaving behind his wife namely, Mitni Devi, as their legal heir/representative. That the copy of death certificates of petitioner/appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been filed as Annexure- 1 & 2. It is submitted that said legal heirs/ representatives are to be substituted in F.A. No.609 of 2006 which was disposed off by judgment dated 19.12.2009.

¶12

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners are rustic villagers and they were not aware about the technicalities and niceties of the procedural law, hence, they could not file the application within time, hence prays that delay be condoned, abatement, if any be set aside and legal heir/representative of deceased petitioner/appellant Nos.1 and 3, be substituted.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the State has not raised any serious objection.

¶14

6. Heard. In the attending facts and circumstances, let the name of Arjun Ram and Mitni Devi be substituted as legal heir/representative of deceased appellant Nos.1 and 3 in F.A. No.609 of 2006 and the decree accordingly.

¶15

7. With the said direction, the civil miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶16

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶17

Animesh/-

Nirpat Ram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirpat Ram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

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

Hasrath Jahan Aliab Boby And Anr. Vs Smt Kamla Choudhary And Anr.

Kali Mahto and Anr. Vs Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto

Jagarnath Singh and Ors. Vs Santawan Rai and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Manager Mr Dipankar Roy Vs MD Wasim Siddique and Ors.

Basant Lal Verma and Anr. Vs Makho Devi and Ors.

Bulaki Mahto and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner and Anr.