Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

LAL MANIversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court condoned the delay, ordered substitution of the legal heirs, and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

Summary

The petitioners filed applications to substitute the legal heirs of a deceased sole petitioner and several deceased respondents, also seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court examined the affidavit explaining the delay and found it satisfactory, thereby condoning the delay. It ordered that the word 'deceased' be inserted beside the names of the deceased parties and that the legal heirs be substituted as per the application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a withdrawal application stating that the parties had reached a settlement outside court, which was not contested by the respondents. The court allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. All applications were thus allowed and the writ petition terminated.

Issues considered

  • Whether the delay in filing the substitution application can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
  • Whether the court can order substitution of legal heirs of deceased parties.
  • Whether the writ petition can be dismissed as withdrawn upon settlement between the parties.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • substitution of legal heirs
  • condonation of delay
  • withdrawal of writ petition
  • settlement
  • civil miscellaneous
  • Limitation Act

Judgment

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    WRIT - B No. - 11032 of 1982

Lal Mani
                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Gupta, Durgesh Kumar
                            Sinha, Ram Sheel Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amitabh Agarwal, Archana Hans, Dr.
                            Vinod Kumar Rai, L.S.Srivastava,
                            Sandatha Rai

Court No. - 54
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation / Substitution Application
Nos.9 & 10, both of 2021.

1. Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant applications have been filed to substitute the legal heirs
of deceased sole petitioner and respondent nos.4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 &
12 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Vakalatnama of the proposed heir-Raj Kumar Rastogi of deceased
sole petitioner is taken on record.

4. The reason for condonation of delay mentioned in the affidavit is
satisfactory. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the names of
deceased sole petitioner, respondent nos.4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 and the
names of legal heirs of petitioner and respondent nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 & 10
as mentioned in the substitution application be substituted
accordingly. In respect to respondent no. 11 & 12 only word
deceased is to be mentioned.

6. The applications are, accordingly, allowed.

Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No.17/2025.
                                                                                      WRIB No. 11032 of 1982
                                                                 2


                                    1. Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
                                    and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the private respondents.

                                    2. The instant withdrawal application has been filed on behalf of
                                    petitioner no.1/1-Raj Kumar Rastogi, supported by an affidavit, with
                                    the prayer that the instant writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn as
                                    the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court.

                                    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ
                                    petition be dismissed as withdrawn as the parties have settled their
                                    dispute outside the Court which is not objected by Ms. Archana Hans,
                                    learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

                                    4. In view of the averments made in the withdrawal application as well
                                    as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
                                    application is allowed.

                                    5. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

                                    Order on Writ Petition

                                    1. In view of the order passed on the aforementioned withdrawal
                                    application, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

                                    April 17, 2026
                                    C.Prakash
                                                                                 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.