Madan Lal vs Murlidhar Runthala And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3013 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil First Appeal No.30/1998
Madan Lal Joshi S/o Sohan Lal Joshi, age 68 years, R/o Ward No.1,
Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
                                                         ----Defendant/Appellant
                                     Versus
1. Murlidhar Runthala (deceased) through his legal representative:-
1/1 Rajkumar S/o Murlidhar Runthala,
1/2 Shivratan S/o Murlidhar Runthala,
1/3 Narendra S/o Murlidhar Runthala,
1/4 Smt. Gayatri W/o Shri Rudman Sharma, D/o Murlidhar Runthala.
All R/o Old Post Office Road, behind the Chandak Road, Pilani, Distt.
Jhunjhunu.
1/5 Smt. Parmeshwary Sharma W/o Shri Ram Avtar Sharma D/o
Murlidhar Runthala, R/o near the government hospital nansa gate
nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
                                                        ----Plaintiff-Respondents

2. Prahalad Rai (deceased) through his legal representative:- 2/1 Tara Devi W/o Late Prahalad Rai (Deceased) ...Proforma-Plaintiff-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M M Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Agarwal Mr. Madan Lal Joshi, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal through VC with Mr. Pratyush Jain, Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Siddhanth Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 08/04/2022

Applications (I.A. Nos.1/2021 & 2/2021) have been filed in

relation to giving information of the death of respondent No.1/1-

Rajkumar and it has been prayed that their legal representatives named

in the application may be taken on record.

For reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed.

The factum of death of respondent No.1/1 is taken on record and their

legal representatives are allowed to be substituted.

(2 of 2) [CFA-30/1998]

Amended cause title, enclosed with the application, is taken on

record.

The appellant has filed another application (I.A. No.1/2022)

supported with affidavit and submits that he does not want to pursue

this first appeal on merits.

The appellant is present in person who has been identified and

verified by counsel for appellant.

By perusal of the impugned judgment dated 06.12.1997, it

appears that respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for preemption which

was decreed in his favour and was allowed to be substituted as

purchaser in the sale deed of the suit property, made by respondent

No.2 in favour of appellant (defendant No.2). The respondent No.1-

plaintiff was held entitled to get possession of the suit property from the

appellant-defendant No.2.

However, if after expiry of nearabout more than 25 years of

passing the impugned judgment, if appellant does not want to pursue

his first appeal on merits, it is not required by this Court to decide

pursue the first appeal on merits in that scenario.

Learned counsel for respondent has no objection, if first appeal is

allowed to be withdrawn.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application (I.A.

No.1/2022) stands allowed. The first appeal is permitted to be

withdrawn and the same is dismissed as withdrawn. There is no order

as to costs.

Record of the trial court be sent back.

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/45

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)