Arvind Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

In view of the office note, the notices issued on respondent nos. 1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv),1(v) and 2 are declared to be served validly.

Vakalatnama has already been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2.

As per the service report, respondent nos. 1(i) has died.

I.A. No. 2815 of 2004

Heard learned counsel for the appellants in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4and 9 of C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased respondent no. 1, who is stated to have died on 30.11.2003 whereas the interlocutory application has been filed on 14.12.2004, after condoning the delay and after setting aside the abatement of appeal. it is submitted that no informatory petition has been filed under Order 22 Rule 10A of C.P.C. and the appellants did not had any knowledge about the death of respondent no. 1 who was living in a remote village which is at the distance of about 20 Kms. from the house of the appellants. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the substitution petition was not intentional.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not raisedany objection. Considering the grounds taken by learned counsel for the appellants, the abatement of appeal against the said respondent is set aside and the delay is condoned and the substitution petition is allowed.

Let the name of legal heirs fully described in paragraph-2 be substituted in place of deceased respondent no. 1.

Office is directed to make necessary entry in the cause title of the memo of appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to serve notice upon the substituted heirs of deceased respondent no.1 at present and correct address under registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisite must be filed within two weeks.

S. A. No. 442 of 2003

Put up this matter under the appropriate heading after four weeks.