- (1.) THE present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein for a direction to the Mukul Bhagat to disclose the name of the person who informed him about the death of respondents, namely, Annapurna Bhagat, Bina Jaiswal and Ruby Jaiswal, the date on which he was informed and the date of the death of the respondents.
(2.) IN response to this I.A., the appellant has filed a reply and thereby, the certain relevant information has been placed on record, which was sought for by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant, Mukul Bhagat informed about the death of respondent Nos. 24 and 27 through his lawyer after the office note given by this Court that respondent Nos. 24 and 27 died and therefore, the notice has been returned unserved and thereafter, the learned counsel communicated to other side sometime in the last week of June, 12 that both respondent Nos. 24 and 27 died and the same has been stated in para 7 of the said reply. So far as the averments made in para 2 and 3 is concerned, the name of the advocates mentioned therein, appears to be unwarranted and therefore, the same be removed from the record. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2357 of 2012 stands disposed of. The present interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of Proforma respodnents as mentioned in Para- 3 of this applicaiton. For the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, I.A. No. 2105 of 2012 is allowed. Accordingly, the necessary amendment be carried out in the appeal. Let notice be issued upon newly added respondents, for which, requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed within a week. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the substitution petition. For the reasons stated in this application, I.A. No. 343/12 stands allowed. Consequently, the delay in filing the substitution petition is condoned. This interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of respondent Nos. 24, 26 and 27.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the other side states that he has not received the copy of the said I.A. Learned counsel for the appellants states that he served the copy of this I.A. to the learned counsel for the other side but at that time, he was away from Ranchi and, therefore, the copy of the same could not be serviced. Learned counsel for the appellants states that he will serve a copy of this I.A. to the learned counsel appearing for the other side in course of the day. Put up these first appeals along with I.A. No. 2178 of 2012 on 10.10.12.;