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
8 paragraphs · 259 wordsAnubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
I.A. No. 1562 of 2023 has been filed for substitution of deceased petitioner Nos. 1 and 11.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 has expired on 13.05.2021 and petitioner No. 11 expired on 25.11.2019. The details of the legal heirs and successors of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 11 has been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 respectively. He submits that he has also filed Vakalatnama of the proposed legal heirs and successors to be substituted along with the Interlocutory application.
Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made in the interlocutory application.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1562 of 2023, seeking substitution of petitioner no. 1 and 11 is hereby allowed. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 1 and 11 from the cause title and insert the name of legal heirs and successors of petitioner Nos. 1 and 11 in the cause title in red ink during the course of the day.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that there are four more petitioners to be substituted they are petitioner nos. 5,6,7 and 8 and he will shortly take steps for substitution of these petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment.
Upon prayer of the petitioners, matter is adjourned and is directed to be posted on 05.04.2023.