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

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sita Ram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Sahu – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 2103 of 2024

In this interlocutory application, leave has been sought for that opposite party No.1 has died and, as such, substitution petition has been sought to be filed in the court.

2. It requires to refer herein that the Opposite Party No.1, who has died for which the instant interlocutory application has been filed, is the wife and in her place her husband and son have been sought to be impleaded as the Opposite Parties.

C.M.P. No.915 of 2023 2

3. Considering the nature of prayer made in the said interlocutory application, the same is being taken on record.

4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Paty No.2, has submitted that the copy of the same has been received and he has sought no time to file response.

5. Considering the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, the substitution so sought to be made in the arrays of the party is hereby allowed.

6. I.A. No.2103 of 2024 stands allowed.

7. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the Opposite Party No.1 forthwith.

C.M.P. No.915 of 2023

8. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order

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