SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sita Ram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Sahu – Respondent
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
Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand
Abdul Rehman and Anr. vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Ors.
L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Messrs. Jairdine Skinner and Co.
Ravajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.