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
30 paragraphs · 532 wordsA.C. Behera, J
I.A. NOS.72, 73 AND 74 OF 2022
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
These three Interlocutory Applications have been filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution of legal heirs of the Respondent No.3.
As per noting of the Registry, the proposed legal heirs of Respondent No.3, i.e., PLR No.3(a) has already made his appearance but, none has appeared from this side.
Therefore, the above Interlocutory Applications are allowed.
The LRs of the deceased Respondent No.3 be substituted in his place.
The appellant is directed to file the consolidated cause title of the appeal memo incorporating the names of the LRs of the deceased Respondent No.3 after serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the respondents.
The Registry is directed to incorporate the names of only five LRs of the deceased Respondent No.3 in the cause-title of the appeal.
The appellant is directed to file requisites for issuance of appeal notice to the LRs. of the Respondent No.3.
Accordingly, the above Interlocutory Applications are disposed of finally.
I.A. NOS.75, 76 AND 77 OF 2022
These three Interlocutory Applications have been filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution of legal heirs of the Respondent No.4.
Accordingly, notices were issued to the LRs of the Respondent No.4.
As per noting of the Registry, notices have not been made sufficient against the LRs of the Respondent No.4.
The appellant is directed to take fresh step for issuance of notices to the LRs. of the Respondent No.4.
I.A. NOS.49, 50 AND 51 OF 2022
These three Interlocutory Applications have been filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution of legal heirs of the Respondent No.6.
Accordingly, notices were issued to the PLRs of the Respondent No.6.
As per noting of the Registry, notices were issued against the LRs. of the Respondent No.6(c) has already been made sufficient, but, the notices against the PLRs of the Respondent Nos.6(b) and 6(d) have not been made sufficient.
Therefore, the appellant is directed to take fresh step for issuance of not notice to the PLRs Nos.6(a), 6(c) and 6(d).
MISC. CASE NO.116 OF 2008
It appears from the noting of the Registry that, the appeal notice issued to the Respondent No.9(g) has not been made sufficient.
Therefore, the appellant is directed to file fresh requisites for issuance of appeal notice to the legal heirs of the Respondent No.9(g).
S.A. NO.210 OF 2002
It appears from the noting of the Registry that, the legal heirs of the respondent nos.5(a) to 5(c) have made their appearance by engaging their counsel on their behalf.
Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1 and 2-State submitted that, the brief of the case has been misplaced somewhere, for which, copies of the LCRs are necessary to argue the appeal.
Registry is directed to furnish the soft copies of the LCRs as required by learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2-State through a pendrive on production of that pendrive by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2-State.
List this appeal on 24.07.2024.
………………………..