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

2024 Supreme(MP) 462

DWARKADHISH BANSAL
Ejaj Ahmed (Dead) through LRs. Smt. Aneesu Bi – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Sahay Johri – Respondent


Advocates:
Saket Malik for appellant;
Anshuman Singh for respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard on I.A.Nos.5005/2024, 5006/2024 & 5007/2024.

2. Aforesaid three applications have been filed in respect of substitution of legal representatives of respondent 1 – Avinash Sahay Johri.

3. I.A.No.5005/2024 has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC with the prayer for substitution of legal representatives on record; I.A.No.5006/2024 is for setting aside abatement; and I.A. No. 5007/2024 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing of the application for setting aside abatement.

4. A joint reply to the applications under Order XXII rule 4 and 9 CPC has been filed supported by affidavit, opposing the prayer for setting aside abatement and for substitution of legal representatives. For the reasons best known to legal representatives of respondent 1 – Avinash Sahay Johri, no reply to the application (I.A.No.5007/2024) under section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent 1 – Avinash Sahay Johri had died on 3.2.2018 and an application under Order XXII rule 4(3) CPC informing his death was filed on 28.9.2021 by his pleader with the prayer for dismissal of appeal

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