This order dismisses an interim application for substitution of parties and the main writ application as incompetent because the sole petitioner, Faiz Murtaza Ali, died during pendency and no substitute claimant was found.
The interlocutory applications and the main writ application are dismissed respectively.
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. 19030 of 2011
=========================================================== Faiz Murtaza Ali, S/O Late (Justice) Murtaza Fazal Ali, R/O 112, Uday Park, New Delhi - 110049 through Anwer Najmi, S/O Late Akhter Syeed Mojibi, R/O Mohalla - Quddus Vakil Compound, Dariyapur, P.S. - Pirbahore, Town and District - Patna, the duly appointed power of attorney on behalf of Faiz Murtaza Ali
Both residents of Konar Avenue, Ranchi – Hazaribagh Road, Police Station – Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar No - 2, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-11-2016
Heard learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1
and 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants in I.A. No. 5547 of 2013 and I.A. No. 6314 of 2013.
From the records, it transpires that the sole petitioner of this application died during the pendency of this application and the aforesaid two interlocutory applications have been filed praying for substitution by the applicants therein in place of the deceased sole petitioner Faiz Murtaza Ali. It transpires that by order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.19030 of 2011 dt.09-11-2016
2/3
07.02.2014 the consideration of the aforesaid two interlocutory applications was deferred in view of the admitted fact that the applicants therein had already filed substitution petition seeking their substitution in the suit pending before the trial court. It further transpires that by subsequent order dated 24.06.2014 the consideration of the aforesaid two interlocutory applications was deferred till the disposal of the substitution petitions in the court below. There was further direction by order dated 19.07.2016 for obtaining the copy of the order passed in the suit. After inquiry in the rival claims for substitution the order/inquiry report dated 29.09.2016 has been sent by the learned court below to this Court and has been placed today for consideration. From the said order, it transpires that the claim of the respective applicants in the aforesaid two interlocutory applications for their substitution has been turned down.
Nobody has appeared to press the two interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. No. 5547 of 2013 and I.A. No. 6314 of 2013.
Today learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 has submitted that after the order/inquiry report dated 29.09.2016, there remains no substance in the claim of the applicants of the said two interlocutory applications to be substituted in the place of the sole deceased petitioner. It has been further contended that as there is now no petitioner in this application, the same may be dismissed as
Patna High Court CWJC No.19030 of 2011 dt.09-11-2016
3/3
infructuous.
After considering the submissions, perusal of the order/inquiry report dated 29.09.2016 and considering the facts and circumstances, the two interlocutory applications are dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, in absence of any petitioner in this application after the death of the sole petitioner, this application is also dismissed as incompetent.
(V. Nath, J.)
Kundan
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 17.11.2016 Transmission 17.11.2016 Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ application can be proceeded with in the absence of any petitioner following the death of the sole petitioner.
Whether the two interlocutory applications for substitution should be dismissed for want of sufficient cause.
Faiz Murtaza Ali
Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam alias Tootoo Imam
Syed Hassan Francis Imam
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
