Dismissed

Padmaram v. Bagaram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2022CW/8993/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC and Article 226 to declare the writ petition abated. The court noted the deaths of all parties involved over the years. Since legal representatives of the deceased parties were not brought on record despite information and ample time, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for abatement was allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as abated.

Padmaram Vs Bagaram and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8993/2014

¶3

Padmaram S/o Shri Bhura Ram, aged about 85 years, Resident of Kuwa Pema Ka Wali, Ten Inderpura Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu.

¶4

----Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bagaram S/o Late Shri Likhmaram, Resident of Village Inderpura Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu.

¶7

----Respondent-Defendant

¶8

Girdhari S/o Bholuram,

¶9

Rajuram S/o Bholuram,

¶10

Kanaram S/o Bholuram,

¶11

Santi Devi D/o Bholuram,

¶12

All Respondent Nos.2 to 5, are Resident of Inderpura Tehsil Udaipurwati Distirct Jhunjhunu.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms.Anzum Parveen, Adv. with Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Adv.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶16

Order

¶17

09/09/2022

¶18

The matter comes up on an application filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Learned counsel Mr.Lokesh Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that the present writ petition is required to be declared abated, as the respondent No.1-Bagaram has expired way back on 03.06.2018 and respondent No.3Rajuram has also expired on 20.04.2016.

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-8993/2014]

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that death of information of these respondents was given by filing the application dated 31.01.2019 and in spite of such application filed and information given, the petitioner has failed to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.1 and 3 on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that counsel for the petitioner has duly been informed but in spite of such long lapse of time after death of respondent Nos.1 and 3, no steps have been taken to bring their legal representatives on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Lokesh Sharma submitted that in the application filed for abatement, he has also informed about the death of sole petitioner-Padmaram and death certificate has also been filed alongwith the application, showing his date of death is ‘28.05.2020’.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya submitted that he after receipt of application from counsel for the respondents had contacted his client telephonically on 29.04.2019 but still no person has contacted him to bring legal representatives on record.

¶26

This Court, considering the fact of death of petitioner on 28.05.2020 and further death of respondent Nos.1 and 3, deems it proper to allow the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as having become abated.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶28

Himanshu Soni/20

Padmaram v. Bagaram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmaram v. Bagaram and Ors.

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

Vikas Samiti Naya Khera Amba B Vs the Jaipur Development Authori

M/S Real Mazon India Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayant Devnani Vs Smt Lata Devnani and Ors.

All India Society for Education and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors.

Vikash Merutha S/O Ramnarayan Merutha Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Pareek S/O Shri Rudmal Pareek Vs the Managing Director, Riico Ltd.