ISLAM MIAN Vs. SATMAT MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

(2.) IN the instant I.A. petition, prayer has been made for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Appellant Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 13. In the application the appellant has stated that appellant no. 9 Lodhu Mian died during pendency of the appeal. The date of death has not been mentioned in the said paragraph. On query, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant no. 9 died sometime in 1992. Similarly, no date of death of appellant no.10 has been mentioned in the application. However, it is stated that he had died in 1992 -93. In paragraph 6 of the application, it is stated that it has come to the knowledge of the appellants that some of the respondents have already died during the pendency of the appeal, so respondents may be called upon to substitute their legal heirs in the present appeal.

(3.) IN the aforesaid premises, the substitution petition is hereby rejected! Consequently this Second Appeal is dismissed as abated.