Dismissed

Arjun Singh Son of Sh. Natthi Singh v. Janglia Son of Sh. Girraj

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2024CSA/198/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan considered a civil appeal where both the sole respondent and several appellants had expired. The respondent filed an application under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC regarding the deceased but noted the appellants failed to file a substitution application.

What did the court decide?

The civil appeal was dismissed in abatement due to the death of the sole respondent and failure of appellants to substitute legal representatives.

Arjun Singh Son of Sh. Natthi Singh Vs Janglia… — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46181]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 198/2008

¶4

Arjun Singh Son Of Sh. Natthi Singh, Resident Of Village Kumha, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Bharatpur

¶5

Laxmi Chand Son Of Sh. Lakahn Lal, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur

¶6

Daulat Singh Son Of Sh. Lakahn Lal, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur (Since Deceased)

¶7

3/1. Mst. Har Pyari Wife Of Sh. Lakahn Lal, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur

¶8

3/2. Lakahn Lal Son Of Sh. Ramji Lal, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur

¶9

Harveer Singh Son Of Sh. Lakahn Lal, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Janglia Son Of Sh. Girraj, Resident Of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur

¶13

	----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: None
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. DileepSingh Jadoun

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

07/11/2024

¶17

None present.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent submitted that appellant Nos. 1, 3/1 and 3/2 have expired but no steps were taken to bring LRs on record. He also submitted that sole respondent plaintiff has also expired but not steps were taken to bring LRs of sole respondent on record. He also submitted that he has brought this

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:46181]

[CSA-198/2008]

fact on record by filing application under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC on 06.08.2024 but till then no application for substitution of LRs was filed by the appellant.

¶23

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

As per statement made by learned counsel for respondent, sole respondent expired on 24.07.2019 whereas appellant No.1, 3/1 and 3/2 have expired nearly 5-6 years before filing of application. After filing of this application, no efforts were made to bring LRs on record.

¶25

In view of aforesaid, appeal cannot survive as sole respondent has expired, hence, taking on record the application, the appeal is dismissed in abatement.

¶26

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶28

PREETI VALECHA /63

Arjun Singh Son of Sh. Natthi Singh v. Janglia Son of Sh. Girraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh Son of Sh. Natthi Singh v. Janglia Son of Sh. Girraj

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

Amilal and Another Vs Ranveer Singh and Others

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Gurjar S/O Gopal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jabbar Singh, Manager Vs Smt. Santosh Devi Wife of Late Shri Pratap

Vidhya Devi Vs Pooran Chandra

Smt. Pratibha Bhawan Wife of Shri Rahul Soni Vs the State of Rajasthan