Hidayatullah v. Baliram Tamoli And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.330 of 1992 ====================================================== Hidayatullah son of late Tufail Ahmad, proprietor, "Eye Shade" Opticians, Opposite Patna Women's Hospital Muradpur, P.S. Pirbahore, DistrictPatna. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Baliram Tamoli son of name not known resident of Mohalla-Sarai Chowk Gaya, Police Station Kotwali, District-Gaya.
2. Dwarika Prasad Nagbanshi.
3. Sona Prasad Nagbanshi.
4. Gopal Prasad Nagbanshi
5. Jawahar Lal Nagbanshi, Sl. 2, 3 and 5 are sons of late Dasain Lal Nagbanshi.
6. Suresh Prasad Nagbanshi son of sona Pd. Nagbanshi all resident of Mohalla-Jairam Bazar, P.S. and P.O. Khagaul, District-Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. , Mr. Abdus Salam Mr. Abbas Haider For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madan Pd.Singh -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 02-07-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been placed today for considering the competency after its dismissal as against respondent no. 4 (1). It transpires from the records that the plaintiffrespondent no. 4 Krishna Prasad Nagbanshi died during the pendency of this appeal and on the prayer of the appellant the respondent no. 4 (1) Gopal Singh Nagbanshi was substituted in his
Patna High Court SA No.330 of 1992 (14) dt.02-07-2015 place by order dated 07.08.1995. It further transpires that this appeal stood dismissed for default as against respondent no. 4 (1) for non-compliance of the order dated 20.05.2009. The learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the respondent no. 4 was also one of the plaintiffs in the court below along with the other plaintiffs and this fact is also apparent from the appellate decree under appeal. After dismissal of the appeal as against respondent no. 4 (1) in this regard, proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders and decrees.
As such, this appeal is dismissed as incompetent. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U