In a writ petition under Article 227, the Patna High Court reviewed an order of the subordinate court allowing substitution of heirs and legal representatives. Finding no illegality in the lower court's order, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
The writ application challenging the substitution of heirs is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13611 of 2013
=========================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Kedar Nath Singh Resident Of Village Hausi
Masahai, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali, At Present East Boaring Road, Patna - 1
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.13611 of 2013 dt.22-11-2016
2
Coloney, P.O. - G.P.O., District - Patna
P.S. Budha Coloney, P.O. - G.P.O., District - Patna
P.S. & P.O. Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RANJEET KUMAR, ADV For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-11-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the impugned order the learned court below has
allowed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as contained in his petition dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-2) for substituting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13611 of 2013 dt.22-11-2016
3
heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 7(a) and Defendant No. 2 after condonation of delay and also after recalling the earlier order for abatement in that regard.
The petitioner is Defendant No. 13 in the suit. The substituted heirs of the deceased defendants have not come before this Court complaining against their substitution.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perusal of the materials on record and the impugned order, this Court does not find that the court below has committed any illegality in passing the order for substitution as prayed by the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case. This court therefore is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interdicting the impugned order.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
| Ranjan | /- |
(V. Nath, J) |
|---|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | ||
| CAVDATE | NA | |
| UploadingDat | e 26.12.2016 |
|
| Transmission | NA | |
| Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the lower court's order permitting substitution of heirs.
Whether the lower court committed any illegality in passing the order for substitution after condoning delay.
Sunil Kumar Singh
Smt. Shail Ojha
Sohan Lall
Mohan Rai
Panwa Devi
Sunaina Devi
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
