SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 411

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, R. C. LAHOTI
MAHMUD MIAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. – Appellant
Versus
SHAMSUDDIN MIAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. – Respondent


ORDER

IAs Nos. 1 and 2

1. Delay condoned. Prayer for substitution allowed. Legal representatives of deceased Respondents 2, 5 and 22 are permitted to be brought on record. The respondents plea that the appeal had abated in the High Court itself is kept open. The names of Respondents 20 and 21 are deleted from the array of parties, at the risk of the petitioners.

IA No.3

2. Prayer seeking deletion of the name of Petitioner 2 is allowed as her LRs are already on record.

3. Leave granted.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench does not satisfactorily dispose of the appeal. It was a partition suit. On account of the death of one of the parties, the appeal could not have abated in its entirety. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3-3-2000 is set aside and the letters patent appeal is remanded to the High Court for hearing and decision afresh on merits.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the letters patent appeal before the High Court was not maintainable. That plea does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. While hearing the appeal on merits,


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top