ABDUL RASID Vs. SHEHNAAZ JEHAN BEGUM AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: JABALPUR)
Shehnaaz Jehan Begum And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
ROHIT ARYA,J. -
(1.) At the outset, I.A. No.2702/2018, an application by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 3 read with 151 of CPC for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No.2 who died during pendency of appeal, is taken up for consideration.
(2.) This appeal was heard on the question of admission on 19.2.2018 and reserved for further orders. On 22.2.2018, the aforesaid I.A. was filed and placed on record. As a matter of fact, earlier similar application was preferred vide I.A. No.14585/2017, an application for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No.2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court on 24.10.2017 disposed of the said I.A in view of statement made by learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No.2 was never married and had no legal heirs, therefore, there is no further need for substitution of his legal representatives. And, the name of respondent No.2 was directed to be scored out from the memo of appeal within three days. It further appears from the record that the name of respondent No.2 was scored out 11.12.2017. Under these circumstances, the application (i.e. I.A. No.2702/2018), being misconceived, is rejected.
(3.) This second appeal by tenant-defendant is directed against judgment and decree dated 4.9.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCA No.52/2011, confirming judgment and decree dated 24.1.2011 passed by trial Court in Civil Suit No.601A/2008, decreeing plaintiffs' suit on the grounds of "bona fide need".;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.