Allahabad High Court
Kawal Singh vs Jamil Ahmad & Another on 17 May, 2013
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 27
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1314 of 1999
Petitioner :- Kawal Singh
Respondent :- Jamil Ahmad & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamalesh Kumar,A.A. Kazmi,M.A. Qadeer
Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar,Karuna Srivastava,M.A. Zaidi,S. Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Delay Condonation Application No.273519 of 2008
Substitution Application No.273491of 2008
The present substitution application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Order I Rule 10(2) CPC alongwith delay condonation application with the prayer that the applicants who are vendees of the disputed property which was transferred in their favour by the sole appellant, be brought on record as legal representatives of deceased sole appellant.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 filed counter affidavit and is contesting the application on the ground that heirs of sole appellant are alive and appeal be abated on account of non-substitution of heirs of sole appellant.
An abatement application dated 11.12.2007 was filed by the learned counsel for the respondents and in affidavit accompanying abatement application, the description of heirs of sole appellant was given there. This Court on 22.8.2008 issued notices to the alleged heirs of the sole appellant as described in paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying abatement application.
Office report indicates that the service of notice upon heirs of sole appellant is sufficient. No one has come forward till date.
It may also be noted that earlier on 6.8.2001 an impleadment application no. 72303 of 2001 was filed by the respondents stating therein that the appellant has sold the disputed property in favour of Zamir Ahmad and Amir Ahmad sons of Sagir Ahmad.
The present application has been filed on behalf of these two persons namely Zamir Ahmad and Amir Ahmad sons of Sagir Ahmad.
In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the disputed property has been sold by the sole appellant during pendency of the present appeal to the applicants in the substitution application.
In view of the said fact, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no 2 regarding status of applicants cannot be sustained.
Delay in filing substitution application has sufficiently been explained. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay condoned. Substitution application is allowed. Office is to make necessary incorporation in the array of parties within one week.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
P.P.
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1314 of 1999
Petitioner :- Kawal Singh
Respondent :- Jamil Ahmad & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamalesh Kumar,A.A. Kazmi,M.A. Qadeer
Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar,Karuna Srivastava,M.A. Zaidi,S. Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Abatement Application.
Application is rejected.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
P.P.
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1314 of 1999
Petitioner :- Kawal Singh
Respondent :- Jamil Ahmad & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamalesh Kumar,A.A. Kazmi,M.A. Qadeer
Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar,Karuna Srivastava,M.A. Zaidi,S. Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Impleadment Application No.72303 of 2001
Impleadment application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in substitution application No.273491of 2008
Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
P.P.
