DEEPENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Jai Kumar, learned counsel representing the Land Management Committee.

(2.) It appears that one Ram Lagan-respondent no.6 instituted a suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A and L.R.Act on 22.09.2003 impleading Awdhesh Prasad, Ananteshwar Prasad, Smt Sheela and Land Management Committee concerned as defendants. An application appears to have been moved by the petitioner in the said suit on 27.12.2006 seeking his impleadment on the ground that the defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit had died about 24-25 years ago and thus, the suit has been instituted against dead persons. He further stated in the said application that he is nephew of defendant nos.1 and 2, namely, Awdhesh Prasad and Ananteshwar Prasad and that the defendant no.2 had executed will deed in his favour and further that he holds power of attorney executed in his favour by defendant no.3-Smt Sheela. On these grounds, the petitioner has sought his impleadment in the pending suit. However, it appears that on an application moved by the plaintiff Ram Lagan-respondent no.6 herein, Smt Neelam, alleged daughter of Awdhesh Prasad was substituted as defendant no.1/1 as per order of the trial court passed on 19.07.2007. Similarly, on the death of Smt Sheela in the year 2009, it appears that on the application moved by the plaintiff, one R.K.Jauhari has been ordered to be substituted vide order dated 24.06.2011 in place of deceased Smt Sheela as defendant no.2/1.

(3.) It is not clear from the pleadings available on record as to R.K.Jauhari has been substituted in place of Smt Sheela or any other defendant.