Substitution of parties in ongoing litigation is valid when consented by surviving parties, ensuring procedural compliance for representation of deceased respondents.

ORDER :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

I.A. No.1596 of 2024:

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for substitution of the respondent nos.5 and 14, who have died during pendency of the writ petition. It is further submitted that in advertently in paragraph no.1 of the present interlocutory application, it could not be mentioned that the same has also been filed for substitution of the respondent no.14. However, it would be evident from the prayer portion of the present interlocutory application that the same has been filed for substitution of the respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.14

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.5-Chandrika Singh has died on 7^th April, 2021 whereas respondent no.14-Shrawan Singh has died on 27^th June, 2022. They left behind their heirs/legal representatives whose descriptions have been given in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the present interlocutory application respectively. Under the said circumstance, they may be permitted to be substituted in place of the respective deceased respondents.

3. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C.(L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has no objection to the said prayer.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, let the heirs/legal representatives of the respondent nos.5 and 14 whose descriptions have been given in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the present interlocutory application be substituted in their respective places.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary substitution in cause title of the present writ petition during course of the day.

6. I.A. No.1596 of 2024 stands disposed of.

I.A. No.1597 of 2024:

7. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for substitution of the respondent nos.6 and 11.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier filed I.A. No.443 of 2023 seeking substitution of the aforesaid respondents as well as the respondent nos.5 and 14. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23^rd January, 2024 with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh interlocutory application. In view of the said liberty, the present interlocutory application has been filed seeking substitution of the respondent nos.6 and 11.

9. It is further submitted that respondent no.6-Phaneshwar Dayal Singh had died during pendency of the Mutation Appeal No.32 of 1993-94 whereas respondent no.11-Prabhu Dayal Singh had died on 27^th July, 2005 during pendency of the Mutation Revision Nos.XV/23 of 1999-2000 and XV/24 of 1999-2000 which were finally rejected vide order dated 29^th June, 2006. It is also submitted that since the respondent nos.6 and 11 have already died much prior to filing of the present interlocutory application, they have been impleaded in this case by mistake, rather their heirs/legal representatives whose descriptions have been given in paragraph nos.3 and 8 of the present interlocutory application respectively should have been impleaded as party respondents.

10. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C.(L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has no objection to the aforesaid submissions.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, let the names of respondent nos.6 and 11 be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition and instead of that the names of their heirs/legal representatives whose de