IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Vijay Kumar Singh and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2677 of 2008
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that this petition has been filed for deleting name of petitioner and petitioner who have expired during pendency of present case – She submits that their names be simply deleted from cause title – Held, Accordingly, I.A. is hereby allowed – Learned counsel for petitioners is directed to delete name of petitioner and insert names of legal heir and successor of petitioner whose details has been mentioned at paragraph of Interlocutory application in red ink during course of day – Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that I.A. has been filed for deleting name of petitioner who died death certificate is on record – Petition for substitution has been filed by his only son whose details has been mentioned at para of interlocutory application –Accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.]
I.A. No. 1835 of 2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petition has been filed for deleting the name of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 (ii) who have expired during the pendency of the present case. She submits that their names be simply deleted from the cause title.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made through interlocutory application.
3. Considering the aforesaid submissions, I.A. No. 1835 of 2022 is hereby allowed at the risk of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the names of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4(ii) from the cause title during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 1837 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 3 has expired during the pendency of this case on 05.05.2021. The death certificate is on record. She submits that the interlocutory application has been filed through the only son of petitioner No. 3 along with the Vakalatnama.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer for substitution.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1837 of 2022 is hereby allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of the petitioner No. 3 and insert the names of legal heir and successor of the petitioner No. 3 whose details has been mentioned at paragraph No. 2 of the Interlocutory application in red ink during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 1838 of 2022
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that I.A. No. 1838 of 2022 has been filed for deleting the name of petitioner No. 5 who died on 30.01.2019. The death certificate is on record. The petition for substitution has been filed by his only son namely Rupesh Kumar Singh whose details has been mentioned at para 2 of the interlocutory application.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer for substitution. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1838 of 2022 is hereby allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 5 and insert the name of his legal heir and successor whose details has been given at paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. Necessary correction be done in red ink during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 2135 of 2020
10. I.A. No. 2135 of 2020 has been filed by one Krishna Ram for impleading him as a private respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel for the intervener that Krishna Ram has expired.
11. Considering the aforesaid submission, I.A. No. 2135 of 2020 is closed.
I.A. No. 2376 of 2020
12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has already been filed. Therefore this interlocutory application may be closed.
13. I.A. No. 2376 of 2020 is closed.
I.A. No. 1060 of 2022
14. Nobody appears on behalf of the intervener to press this interlocutory application.
15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1060 of 2022 is dismissed as not pressed.
W.P. (C) No. 2677 of 2008
16. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that entire query of this court has been explained by filing a supplementary counter affidavit in the present case. She submits that the allegation that two parallel jamabandi are running with respect to the same property is not correct as per the explanation furnished in the supplementary affidavit.
17. Post this case on 28.02.2023 under appropriate heading in the supplementary cause list.
Substitution of legal representatives for deceased parties in proceedings where no objection from other parties exists is permissible under procedural law.
Substitution of parties in ongoing litigation is valid when consented by surviving parties, ensuring procedural compliance for representation of deceased respondents.
Court can allow the deletion of deceased parties from a legal proceeding when their legal representatives are already on record.
Substitution of deceased parties in appeal proceedings must comply with statutory timelines.
Interlocutory applications under CPC for deletion and addition of party respondents are valid when circumstances justify them.
The court affirmed the procedural allowance for substituting a party in case of death during the litigation process.
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.