AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 183 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (now the sole respondent) in respect of M.A. No. 192 of
2021. The prayer in the MA is to substitute the name of deceased proprietor of respondent no. 1 Late Dharmender Kumar Pandey with that of his son
Mr. Utkarsh Pandey.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that in the facts of the case, the substitution should be under Order XXII Rule - 4 of the CPC and not as
an addition to a party under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. Learned counsel for applicant has no objection to the substitution being allowed under
Order XXII Rule -4 of the CPC.
In the facts of the case, the prayer for substitution is allowed and name of Mr. Utkarsh Pandey be substituted in place of his father Late Dharmender
Kumar Pandey as legal representative. The M.A is disposed of accordingly.
Let the matter be placed before the Court of Registrar on 25.1.2022 for passing further necessary orders and directions to make the petition ready for
hearing.Â