← Library
Patna High CourtSA/758/1986dismissed

Hakim Syed Rasiuddin Nabi v. Sant Lall And ORS

2015-03-13Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Second Appeal No.758 of 1986 ====================================================== Hakim Syed Rasiuddin Nabi, son of late Syed Manzoorun Nabi, resident of Mohalla Leheri, PS and Town Biharsharif, District Nalanda .......... (Plaintiff .......... Appellant) .... .... Appellants

Versus

1. Sant Lall, son of Late Lakhan Lal Kasera

2. Nankhu Lall, son of Late Lakhan Lal Kasera

3. Sunil Kumar, son of Late Lakhan Lal Kasera

4. Smt. Mira Devi, widow of Late Lakhan Lal Kasera All resident of Mohalla Sherpur Pandit Gali, Chowk Bazar, PS & Town Biharsharif, District Nalanda .....(Defendants .......... Respondents) ... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. M.A.Shahabuddin Mr. Abdus Salam For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad N.3 Mr. Sudhir Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 13-03-2015 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant or the applicants, who have filed the petition for substitution as heirs of the deceased sole appellant.

Perused the office notes, from which it transpires that by order dated 10.4.1998 it has been directed that the substitution matter shall be considered after appearance of Nazma Khatroon, daughter of the deceased sole appellant. For non compliance of the order dated 7.7.2005 this appeal stood dismissed as against the proposed heir Nazma Khatoon.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is transparent that there is no appellant present in this appeal, which has also stood dismissed as against one of the proposed heirs of the deceased

Patna High Court SA No.758 of 1986 (10) dt.13-03-2015 appellant. No step has been taken after dismissal of this appeal as against one of the proposed heirs in the year 2005. As such proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders. This appeal is therefore dismissed as incompetent. (V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/- U