CHAIRMAN ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BINAY KUMAR JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendantsappellants, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 12th of March, 1975 passed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Money Suit No. 30 of 71/10 of 74, have preferred this appeal.

(2.) It appears that LA. No. 2938 of 2010 was filed by original respondent No. 2, who had been shown as a minor under the guardianship of his mother, i.e.; the original Respondent No. 1, with a prayer.to allow him to defend the appeal as major, and he be also substituted in place of respondent No.l. However, since respondent No. 1 had died, another I.A. No. 908 of 2008 was filed for that purpose and was allowed with a direction to expunge her name, it was confined only to the extent that respondent No.2 be directed to defend his appeal as major and the interlocutory application was disposed of vide order No. 21 dated 6.9.2010. However, it appears that necessary correction was not made by the office with respect to the concerned respondent in the memorandum of appeal which still shows that the concerned respondent, is under the guardianship of his mother, Malti Devi, i.e., the original respondent No. 1, who had died earlier. A vakalatnama was also filed on behalf of the concerned respondent as far back as on 15.1.2008 showing him to be major. Thus, in view of the order dated 6.9.2010, I have heard the respondent treating him to be major. Let the office also make necessary correction in the memorandum of appeal in this regard.

(3.) The original plaintiffrespondent (respondent No.l since deceased) had filed the suit in forma pauperis for declaration that husband of the plaintiff Late Sri Surendra Jha died on duty due to negligence of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were defendant Nos. 2 and 3 prior to the amendment. Plaintiff had prayed for grant of a decree for compensation amounting to Rs.60,000/ with interest and had also prayed for guaranteed education and employment of plaintiff No. 2.