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
13 paragraphs · 396 wordsS.P Mehrotra, J.—Case called out in the revised list.
Learned Counsel for the applicants in Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2121987) is not present.
Pursuant to the order dated 9th March, 2006, the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court on account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Substitution Application in taking requisite steps for issuance of notice, pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 1987 passed by the Joint Registrar on the aforementioned Substitution Application.
Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken on behalf of the applicants for issuance of notice on the aforementioned Substitution Application.
Further, none is present on behalf of the applicants even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
In the circumstances, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the aforementioned Substitution Application for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the �Court.
The aforementioned Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2121987) is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
It may be noted that the aforementioned Substitution Application has been filed consequent to the death of Vishwanath, son of Satya Narain (plaintiffappellant).
It is further noteworthy that Satya Narain (plaintiff appellant No. 1) had expired during the pendency of the Second Appeal and in his place, the name of ''ns said son Vishwanath was substituted as his sole heir and legal representative, pursuant to the order dated 24th January, 1985 passed on Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. Nil of 1982 (Dated 10111982).
Thus, the said Vishwanath, son of Satya Narain remained on the record as the sole plaintiffappellant.
As noted above, the aforementioned Civil Misc. Substitution'' Application No. 7083 of 1987 (Dated 2121987) has been filed consequent to the death of the said Vishwanath.
In view of the dismissal of the aforementioned Substitution Application, the Appeal at the instance of the said Vishwanath stands abated.
As the said Vishwanath remained the sole plaintiffappellant on the record, the Second Appeal stands dismissed, as having abated.