Allahabad High Court
TULSI RAMversusD.D.C. RAMPUR AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The court condoned the delay, allowed substitution of the legal heirs as petitioners, and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioners filed applications to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and to seek condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found the affidavit explaining the delay satisfactory and allowed the substitution, noting the petitioner as deceased and inserting the heirs' names. Subsequently, a withdrawal application was filed to dismiss the writ petition, which the court accepted after considering the supporting affidavit. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as withdrawn and the interim order previously granted was vacated. Both the substitution applications and the withdrawal application were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the substitution application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the legal heirs can be substituted as petitioners in place of the deceased sole petitioner
- Whether the writ petition can be dismissed as withdrawn upon the petitioner's request
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- substitution of parties
- condonation of delay
- withdrawal of writ petition
- civil miscellaneous
- Limitation Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 5943 of 2003
Tulsi Ram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C. Rampur And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shreeprakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dinesh Pathak, N.K.Rastogi
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation / Substitution Application Nos.7 & 8,
both of 2025.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant applications have been filed to substitute the legal heirs
of deceased sole petitioner along with an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act.
3. Vakalatnama of the proposed heirs has been annexed along with
the applications.
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 name of sole
petitioner and the names of his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer
clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos. 1/1 and 1/3.
6. The applications are, accordingly, allowed.
Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No.9/2026.
1. Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The instant withdrawal application, supported by the affidavit of the
WRIB No. 5943 of 2003
2
petitioners, has been filed to dismiss the instant writ petition as
withdrawn.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts
mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the
instant writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
4. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of
the application as well as in the light of the submission made by
the 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 Civil Misc.
Withdrawal Application, the instant writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
2. Interim order granted by this court is vacated.
May 5, 2026
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…