These are two applications, one for substitution of the deceased appellant no.10 namely, Om Prakash and the another for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application. These applications are supported with an affidavit.
Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the application.
Reasons given for delay in filing the substitution application in the affidavit is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. The delay condonation application stands allowed.
It is stated in the affidavit that respondent no.10 namely Om Prakash died on 23.2.2009, leaving behind his son namely Bhagwan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed his power on behalf of the heir and legal representative of deceased appellant no.10.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the application for substitution of deceased appellant no.10, Om Prakash is allowed. Let the heir and legal representative of deceased appellant no.10 as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit be substituted in the array of the parties. Necessary substitution be carried out by the office.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 vks Court No. - 19 Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 184280 of 2009 IN Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 927 of 2003 Petitioner :- Lala Ram & Others Respondent :- Smt. Kalawati & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anupam Kulshreshtha Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Allowed.
For orders, see order of date passed on the Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 184281 of 2009.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 vks