LUXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the valid, and, good reasons, as meted in the application for condoning the apposite delay of 107 days, therefore, the application is allowed.

(2.) Delay of 107 days in filing the review application, is condoned. CM-1494-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-35-2024 in CWP-1161-2006

(3.) Civil Writ Petition bearing No.CWP-1161-2006 became decided alongwith connected writ petition(s) through a verdict drawn thereon on 6/9/2023. However, today an application has been filed at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased in the writ petition(s) (supra). An awakening therein has been made to this Court today by the legal representatives of deceased petitioner, that the said writ petitioner expired on 17/4/2016. However, despite hers thus expiring during the pendency of the said writ petition, yet no application became instituted for ensuring that her estate becomes substituted by her legal representatives. In sequel, when only in respect of the deceased litigant (supra), as such the verdict, as became drawn is non-est, thereby the same is required to be recalled. However, before proceeding to recall the verdict (supra) made on 6/9/2023 on the said writ petition, alongwith connected writ petition(s), it is deemed appropriate to order for the substitution of the deceased petitioner concerned, in the apposite writ petition rather by her legal representatives, as disclosed in para No.2 of the application. Amended memo of parties, as appended with the application, is taken on record.