MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Sudama Rai – Appellant
Versus
Bhagrashan Rai – Respondent
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 on the Interlocutory Application No. 1188 of 2014.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14.
3. At the time of hearing of this application the learned counsel Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh for the appellants submitted that respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 neither appeared nor filed written statement in the court below, therefore, although he has filed the application for substitution, the appellants may be exempted from substituting the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in view of the provision as contained in Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 series has got no objection.
5. Accordingly, so far the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are concerned, the appellants are exempted from
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.