Failure to file substitution applications for the legal representatives of deceased parties can lead to the abatement and dismissal of the appeal.

( 1 ) CASE called out in the revised list.

( 2 ) NONE is present on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. However, Sri Rajesh Dwivedi, holding brief for Sri Radhey Shyam , learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Misc. (Abatement ) Application No. 11509 of 2005, is present.

( 3 ) IT appears that the aforementioned Abatement Application has been filed on behalf of Jag Brij Singh, stated to be son of the Late Ram Saran Singh ( defendant -respondent no. 5 ).

( 4 ) THE aforementioned Abatement Application is supported by an affidavit, sworn by the said Jag Brij Singh, on 22/12/2005.

( 5 ) IT is, interalia, stated in paragraph no. 2 of the said affidavit that Sarvajeet Singh (plaintiff-appellant) died in the year 1984.

( 6 ) IT is, interalia, further stated in paragraph no. 3 of the said affidavit that Jagjeet (defendant-respondent no. 2) died in May, 2004, and the said Ram Saran Singh (defendant -respondent no. 5) died in October, 1993.

( 7 ) IN view of the averments made in the aforementioned Abatement Application, the Court by its order dated 21/7/2006 directed the Office to submit its report as to whether any Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Sarvajeet Singh (plaintiff-appellant ).

( 8 ) BY the said order dated 21/7/2006, the Court, interalia, further directed the Office to submit its report as to whether any Substitution Application had been filed for brining on record the respective heirs and legal representatives of the said Jagjeet (defendant-respondent no. 2) and the said Ram Saran Singh (defendant -respondent no. 5 ).

( 9 ) PURSUANT to the said order dated 21/7/2006, the Office has submitted its report dated 27. 7. 2006.

( 10 ) A perusal of the said Office Report dated 27/7/2006 shows that no Substitution Application has been filed for bringing on record the respective heirs and legal representatives of the said Jagjeet (defendant-respondent no. 2) and the said Ram Saran Singh (defendant-respondent no. 5 ).

( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the Second Appeal as against the said Jagjeet (defendant-respondent no. 2) and the said Ram Saran Singh (defendant-respondent no. 5), stands abated.

( 12 ) THE said Office Report dated 27/7/2006 further shows that no Substitution Application has been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Sarvajeet Singh (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Sarvajeet Singh (plaintiff-appellant ).

( 13 ) IN the circumstances, the Second Appeal at the instance of the said Sarvajeet Singh (plaintiff-appellant), stands abated.

( 14 ) THE said Sarvajeet Singh was the sole plaintiff-appellant in the Second Appeal. Therefore, the Second Appeal stands dismissed as having abated.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document