M/S Ram Swaroop Agarwal A ... vs Gajanand Kajaria
2023 Latest Caselaw 1980 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  S.A. No. 50 of 2019
                                ------

M/s Ram Swaroop Agarwal a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Vijay Agarwal (Ringsia) & Anr.

                                          .... .... .... Appellants
                                Versus
    Gajanand Kajaria                      .... .... .... Respondent
                                ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Salona Mittal, Advocate

------

Order No.17 Dated- 08.05.2023 I.A. No.4771 of 2021 The learned counsel for the intervener -Ruplata Sharma submits that during the pendency of this instant interlocutory application, Ruplata Sharma died, hence this interlocutory application has become infructuous.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No.7210 of 2021 Heard the parties.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the four interveners whose names, parentage and address has been mentioned under the heading 'In the matter of' submits that the instant interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to permit the interveners to be impleaded as party-respondents in this second appeal. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the interveners that subsequent to passing of the decree by the first appellate court, which is challenged in this appeal, sale deed dated 30 th September, 2019 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Ruplata Sharma and Ruplata Sharma expired on 2nd October, 2021 leaving behind these interveners as her only legal representatives. The learned counsel for the interveners further submits that pursuant to the sale, the interveners have stepped into shoes of the plaintiff and they undertake not to take any plea inconsistent with that of the plaintiff and also undertake to abide by the judgment and decree to be passed in this second appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the said four interveners whose names, parentage and address has been mentioned under the heading 'In the matter of' as party-respondents.

The learned counsel for the appellants has no serious objection. Considering the aforesaid facts, the four interveners whose names, parentage and address has been mentioned under the heading 'In the matter of' are directed to impleaded as respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 and the present sole respondent be numbered as respondent no.1.

Registry is directed to incorporate the name, parentage and address of the said four interveners whose names, parentage and address has been mentioned under the heading 'In the matter of' as respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 in the cause title of the appeal memo with red ink.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No.4333 of 2023 Heard the parties.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing but it is fairly submitted that the appeal has not yet been admitted.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is indisposed today and prays for time.

Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for time and submits that since the proceedings of execution case has been stayed, hence an early date be fixed.

List this appeal on 17.05.2023 under the heading "Order XLI Rule 11 CPC" at the top of the list of Admission Cases.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that Interlocutory Application No. 302 of 2021 will be considered, if and when the appeal is admitted and hearing is taken up.

Sonu-Gunjan/-                         (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)