Sub Division Officer (Telegraph) vs Narayan Lal S/O Shri Prabhati Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3250 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1091/2018

1.       Sub Division Officer (Telegraph), Sub Divisional Office
         (CT) BSNL, Jaitpura, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
2.       Divisional Engineer (Phones) Rural And Quarter, Telecom
         Department GMTD Jaipur
                                                                           ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Narayan Lal S/o Shri Prabhati Lal, R/o Village Samod
         Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur Rajasthan
2.       Govindram S/o Shri Prabhati Lal, R/o Village Samod Tehsil
         Chomu District Jaipur Rajasthan
                                                                         ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Takhat Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

22/04/2022

1. This first appeal has been filed by appellants on behalf of

BSNL, feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated

25.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Chomu, District

Jaipur in Civil Suit No.19/2014 whereby suit for eviction has been

decreed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs

2. It has been informed that during pendency of appeal, one of

respondent No.1-plaintiff Narayan lal has passed away, leaving

behind his legal representatives, named in the application

(No.1/2022) and both LRs may be substituted in place of

deceased respondent.

                                                                               (2 of 2)                     [CFA-1091/2018]



                                   3.    Counsel   for    respondent           No.2      does        not   oppose     the

                                   application.

4. Hence, legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1,

namely Mr.Santosh Kumar Saini and Mr. Hanuman Sahai Saini are

allowed to be substituted in his place. Amended cause title,

enclosed with the application, be taken record.

5. Accordingly, the application (No.1/2022) stands disposed of.

6. Another application (No.2/2022) has been filed, alleging inter

alia that during pendency of appeal, appellants have vacated the

rented premises and handedover the possession to respondents. A

copy of written document dated 31.12.2021 about handing over

the possession of vacated premises to respondents and issue of

NOC by the respondents has been placed on record.

7. Counsel for both parties admit the factum of compromise,

and submits that in view of vacation of rented premises, this first

appeal has rendered infructuous.

8. Accordingly, taking the factum of compromise on record, this

first appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

9. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,

also stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN/49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)