Dismissed

Narendra Singh v. Sampat Mal Bothra

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2023CFA/109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This final order dismissed the civil first appeal as abated because no steps were taken to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. The related applications under Order XXII Rule 4(3) CPC were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as having abated against respondent No.1. Both applications under Order XXII Rule 4(3) CPC were disposed of.

Narendra Singh Vs Sampat Mal Bothra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/006784]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 109/2021

¶4

Narendra Singh S/o Laxmi Narayan Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Udairamsar, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sampat Mal Bothra S/o Shri Dhanraj Bothra, R/o Udairamsar, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner at Present Resident of Patharkandhi, Dist. Kareemganj (Assam)

¶8

LRs of Laxmi Narayan Singh S/o Shri Ram Chandra Singh (since deceased)

¶9

2/1. Surji Devi W/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Singh (since deceased)

¶10

2/2. Veerendra Singh S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Singh, R/o Ward No. 4, Udairamsar, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶11

2/3. Ravi Shanker Singh S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Singh, R/o Ward No.4 Udairamsar, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶12

2/4. Smt. Suvidha Devi D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Singh W/o Shri Mina Ram, R/o Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶13

2/5. Smt. Sunita Yadav D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Yadav W/o Shri Surendra Singh, R/o Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶14

2/6. Praveen Yadav S/o Shri Sheesh Ram Yadav, R/o Gurgaon (Haryana)

¶15

2/7. Smt. Mamta D/o Shri Sheesh Ram Yadav, R/o Gurgaon (Haryana)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

¶18

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/03/2023

[2023/RJJD/006784]

[CFA-109/2021]

(2 of 2)

An application under Order XXII Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred on behalf of respondents on 01.08.2022 with a submission that respondent No.1 has expired on 21.02.2022 and the said information was given to learned counsel for the appellant on 19.04.2022 but as no steps have been taken qua him, the appeal be dismissed as having abated. As the said application was not supported by an affidavit, a fresh application along with an affidavit had been preferred on 03.01.2023 with the same submissions. Copies of both the applications have been served on learned counsel for the appellant.

¶25

The order sheet dated 19.04.2022 shows that on that date also the fact that respondent No.1 has expired had come on record.

¶26

Till date, no steps for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 have been taken.

¶27

In view of the said fact, the present appeal is dismissed as having abated against respondent No.1.

¶28

Both the applications stand disposed of.

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

34-Sachin/-

Narendra Singh v. Sampat Mal Bothra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh v. Sampat Mal Bothra

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

Manjeet Singh Vs Charanjeet Kaur

Prakash Choudhary Vs Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Akbar Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Damaram Vs Bherulal Mishrimal Daga Joint Hindu Family

Girvar Singh Vs Sultan Singh

Ankit Gaur Vs State and Ors.