Back
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agarwal, J
Chandra v. Hari Singh and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. repeat applications for substitution need to show sufficient cause. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of previous judgments leading to appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. substantive issues leading to the current appeal. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. arguments presented by both appellant and respondents regarding delay. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. court's findings on negligence and denial of applications. (Para 18 , 24 , 26) |
1. Heard on IA No. 07 which is a repeat application under O.22 R.4 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2, 3 (a) and 5 and IA No 08, application under S.5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under O.22, R. 4 of CPC.
2. Notices on these applications were directed to be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5. On receipt of notice, counsel for the proposed respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5 entered appearance before this Court in respect of the sustaining of IA Nos. 7 and 8 and vehemently opposed the said IAs and stressed hard for their rejection.
3. Before deciding the two IAs, it is necessary to narrate the facts leading to the second appeal and subsequent filing of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
