- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This is an application filed by respondents with the prayer that the writ petition be dismissed as abated since petitioner have not taken steps for bringing on record the heirs of deceased petitioner No. 1 and also to substitute the heirs of respondent Nos. 6, 10 and 12 who had died on 18-12- 1996, 14-8-2000 and 12-6-1995 respectively and the petition be directed to stand abated against these respondents and the name of petitioner No. 1 be deleted from the array of the parties.
(2.) SRI G. D. SRIvastava, learned Senior Counsel argued that he may now be granted time to take steps for substitution. He further submitted that the Limitation Act as such is not applicable and he has to only explain laches in not taking steps for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased parties. Without entering into questions whether Limitation Act as such is applicable or not, the arguments advanced by Sri Srivastava that the petitioner has to explain only laches in filing an application for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased parties, deserves to be rejected. The petitioner who has not taken steps till date by filing an application for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased parties and Counsel appearing for the petitioner is seeking further time even though, the application has been filed seeking declaration that the petition stand abated against such parties who though died long ago but no steps for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased parties have been taken by the petitioner. This itself demonstrates that the petitioner is guilty of laches. Thus, in my opinion this application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The name of petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 6, 10 and 12 be deleted from the array of the parties and the petition stands abated against these parties. This fact be brought to the notice of the Bench hearing the petition. Application allowed. .;