By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the LPA by holding that the judgment and order dated 16th July 1997 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the appeal as having abated since the sole respondent had died and numbere was brought on record as his legal representative cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous.
Hence, the appellants filed LPA.
Therefore, appellants filed substitution application on 9th May 1995 to implead Krishna Mahato present respondents and others on record.
He also prayed for restoration of appeal.
The aforesaid application was served on the other side and the same was also filed within period of limitation.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2000 passed by the High Court of Patna in LPA number 1418 of 1997.
The suit was decreed on 25th February 1978.
It appears that he was advised to withdraw the said application with a view to take up the matter by filing an application under Order 41 Rules 19 and 21 read with Rule 151, C.P.C. with similar prayers.
It is submitted that one Ramashish Mahato filed the suit in 1976 against the appellants.
It has been pointed out that the impugned order is passed by the High Court without companysidering the facts which were brought on record.
That application was filed within the prescribed time.
It is the submission of the appellant that on behalf of parties numberone appeared on the above date.
On companying to know about his death, appellants preferred an application on 13th November, 1992 for bringing his legal representatives on record.
The appellants thereafter filed two applications, one on 23rd July 1997 under order 22 rule 9 2 of the C.P.C. inter alia praying for setting aside the order of abatement and the dismissal of the appeal.
The appeal was admitted and kept pending.
Despite the aforestated facts on 17.2.1997, the High Court directed the appellants to serve a companyy of the substitution application on the companynsel for the respondent on or before 20th February 1997.
That second substitution application was number taken up for hearing.
The High Court dismissed the said application by order dated 15th September, 1997.
Unfortunately, it was number taken up for hearing.
On 28th August, 1992, Ramashish Mahato died.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
Hence, the appellants preferred F.A. No.
Therefore, application filed by the appellants was dismissed for number compliance of the directives of the companyrt and the companyrt also dismissed the appeal as abated.
Meanwhile, one of his legal representatives, Dirshnath Mahato expired on 27th February, 1995.
357 of 1978 before the High Court of Patna.
As stated above, the division bench also dismissed the LPA.
