Shankar Dass Mimani vs State & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1097 Del

              *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                          Date of Reserve: February 10, 2011

                                 Date of Decision: February 23, 2011

                                    + W.P(Crl) No. 728/2008
%                                                                                23.02.2011
         Shankar Dass Mimani                                   ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State & Ors.                                          ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. K.S. Pathani for petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for DDA


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                              ORDER

Crl.MA 388/2011

1. This application has been preferred by the son of the petitioner accompanied with

an application for substituting him as legal heir of the petitioner.

2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner died on 11th June, 2009. On 9th July,

2009 when the matter was taken up, the counsel for the petitioner informed about the

death of the petitioner and stated that steps would be taken to bring Lrs of the deceased

petitioner on record. Thereafter, none appeared for the petitioner and this petition was

dismissed for non prosecution on 28th October 2009 by this Court.

3. The present application for restoration has been preferred on behalf of the

W.P(Crl.) 728/2008 Page 1 Of 3 petitioner by his son after delay of over 390 days of dismissal of the petition for non

prosecution and after 537 days of the death of the petitioner.

4. The present writ petition was filed in 2008 with a prayer for issuing a mandamus

to register a criminal case with CBI and directing it to investigate the matter qua disputes

over the property transferred in the name of the respondent sometime in 1974. It is

submitted by the applicant, son of deceased petitioner that his father had suffered a

cerebral stroke in 1990 and consequently was left paralyzed and was never fully cured

and remained confined to his bed till his death in 2009 and after that it was he who was

prosecuting the case.

5. From this statement, it is apparent that father's name was being used by the

applicant since father was not capable of moving out of the bed for prosecuting the case.

The applicant was very well aware of the case and was also aware of the death of his

father. The applicant's father had also filed several other cases against the respondents

and the applicant had been appearing with counsel in other cases even after death of his

father. It is apparent from the reply filed by respondents no.1 and 2 that the son of the

petitioner (present applicant) had appeared in complaint case No. 4 of 1985 on 27th

September 2010, 16th April, 2010, 21st October 2010 and 16th December 2010 and the

same counsel was pursuing the writ petition as well as the complaint.

6. Looking at the fact that the applicant was well aware of this petition filed by his

father and was in fact pursuing this and the other cases filed by his father and did not

take steps to bring himself as legal representative of his father or to restore this petition, I

find no force in this application. The application is hereby dismissed.

Crl.MA Nos. 389-91/2011



W.P(Crl.) 728/2008                                                                    Page 2 Of 3

7. In view of dismissal of the application for restoration of the petition, these

applications have become infructuous and are hereby dismissed as such.

February 23, 2011                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




W.P(Crl.) 728/2008                                                            Page 3 Of 3