MOOL CHAND Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The respondent No. 1 filed PA. Case No. 43 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. During the pendency of the case, the respon dent No. 4 Smt. Dhooma died. The respon dent No. 1, therefore, moved an application that the deceased may be noted against her name as her heirs are already on record. The petitioner alleged that Smt. Dhooma has also left daughters as her heirs and they should also be impleaded. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 1-2-2001 allowed the application of respondent No. 1 and ordered that the deceased be noted against the name of Smt. Dhooma. He held that the daughters are not required to be impleaded. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Nigam, learned counsel for respon dent No. 1.

(3.) THE petition is disposed of finally. Petition allowed. .