The Patna High Court dismissed this first appeal as incompetent and abated because the sole appellant died without any substitution application being filed or legal heirs identified under Order 22 Rule 4(3) CPC.
The appeal is dismissed as incompetent and abated.
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.
Patna High Court FA No.256 of 1988 (9) dt.05-02-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.256 of 1988
| ====================================================== Shyam Narain Chaudhary .... .... Appellant/s Versus |
|
|---|---|
| Gopal Chaudhary & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
|
| Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Madan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.K.Chaudhary |
|
| 9 05- |
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 02-2013 Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned counsel for the appellant on the interlocutory application No.7955 of 2012. |
| This application has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 stating that the sole appellant died on 4.12.2011 and still today no substitution application |
|
| has been filed for substitution of the legal representatives and moreover according to this application, the sole appellant died leaving behind no legal heirs. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that he has got no instruction in spite of repeated letters written by him. |
|
| It appears that this First Appeal arises out of preliminary decree whereas First Appeal No.768 of 1991 was filed by the said sold appellant against final decree which has already been dismissed as incompetent in view of the fact that no substitution has been made in place of the deceased sole appellant. Since, the sole appellant died on 4.12.2011 and no substitution has been made, therefore, in view of the provision as contained under Order 22 Rule 4 sub |
|
| Rule 3 C.P.C., the appeal has already been abated. Now, therefore, the whole appeal is incompetent and accordingly, it is dismissed as abated. |
Sanjeev/-
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this appeal is competent following the death of the sole appellant without substitution.
Whether the absence of legal heirs abates the appeal under Order 22 Rule 4(3) CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Narain Chaudhary
Gopal Chaudhary & Ors
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
