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

1998 Supreme(All) 138

B.DIKSHIT
MANGAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI – Respondent


B. DIKSHIT, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order passed by IVth Additional District Judge, varanasi on an application of the petitioner in revision filed under Section 18 of U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [in short act) wherein the petitioner claimed that revision stands abated for want of substitution of legal representatives of bal Mukund Singh, who was an opposite party in revision before Court below. The petitioner claims himself as legal representative as well as son of Bal Mukund Singh.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that proceedings in revision abated as no application for substituting the legal representatives of Bal Mukund was moved within one month from the date of his death, as contemplated under Rule 25 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Rules. 1972. The learned counsel relied on the cases of Ram Naresh Tripathi v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, 1980 AWC 558 and Smt. Sebra v. District Judge, meerut, 1983 AWC 109. In support of his argument.

( 3 ) RULE 25 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has been framed kee








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