1 had died on 25th February, 1994 and numbersteps were taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM No.
1 was survived by heirs and legal representatives, it was number possible to accede to the request of the appellant to delete Respondent No.
1 and that the earlier Revision Petition was also dismissed for number prosecution on 29th September, 1999, but was subsequently restored.
1 from the Cause Title of the Civil Revision Petition being CR No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO5133 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
4194 of 2006 is companycerned, it appears that an application was filed by the appellant for deletion of the name of Respondent No.
528 of 1993.
528 of 1993.
By the impugned order, the High Court had rejected the same on the ground that Respondent No.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application holding that since Respondent No.
1 on record only to prolong the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition.
According to the High Court, the appellant was deliberately number bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Respondent No.
2871 of 2007 RAMESH CHAND RAMESH CHANDER APPELLANT S VERSUS UGANTI DEVI D TH.
So far as Civil Revision case being Civil Revision Petition No.
1 from the array of parties.
In respect of this order, which is challenged in this appeal, we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
2961 of 2007 O R D E R Leave granted.
5134 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
RESPONDENT S WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4194 of 2006 and in CRP No.
LRS ANR.
So far as CM No.
