Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 18 of 2007 Appellant :- Dr. P.C. Gupta Respondent :- Sharat Chandra & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Mandhyan Counsel for Respondent :- M.M. Tripathi,A.K. Gupta,Swapnil Kumar
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Archit Mandhayan, learned counsel appearing for the proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 is the proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff-appellant, who is represented by Sri Archit Mandhyan, Advocate.
The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration of his rights over the house in dispute but the plaint of the said suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 by the impugned judgment and order dated 1.12.2006. Similar dispute between the parties regarding the properties including the house in dispute was also instituted by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 by means of Suit No. 701 of 2011 in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 6 Ghaziabad. In the said suit, both of them entered into a compromise and an application dated 27.7.2017 was filed therein jointly signed by both of the parties accepting the compromise. In the said compromise, both of them have agreed that the respondent no.2, the proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff- appellant herein, would get the present appeal dismissed as abated as all their disputes relating to the properties have otherwise been resolved amicably.
Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff-appellant has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the compromise application, which was filed in Suit No. 701 of 2011 in the Civil Court at Ghaziabad.
In view of the aforesaid compromise, Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff-appellant submits that he does not want to press the substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, plaintiff-appellant, who had died on 21.11.2013 and that the appeal may be dismissed as abated.
Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, the main contesting party accepts all that has been said by Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/proposed heir and legal representative of the plaintiff-appellant and has no objection if the appeal is dismissed as abated.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the plaintiff-appellant has died on 21.11.2013 and his heirs and legal representatives are not substituted, the appeal is dismissed as abated.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Noman