GANGA DEVI(Not Applicable) vs BANSI RAM Deceased through Lrs Om Parkash(Not Applicable) — CMP.M/2016/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O 22 R 4, 9. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010695122025

Filing Number

CMP.M/58802/2025

Filing Date

12-Nov-2025

Registration No

CMP.M/2016/2025

Registration Date

24-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O 22 R 4, 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GANGA DEVI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Janesh Gupta

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BANSI RAM Deceased through Lrs Om Parkash(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

    Summary of CMP(M) No. 2016 of 2025 The court allowed the application to bring deceased respondent Om Prakash's legal representatives on record in the pending appeal. The court held that partial substitution of legal representatives does not cause abatement when the deceased's estate is sufficiently represented, relying on Supreme Court precedent establishing that all legal heirs need not be impleaded. The court accepted the applicants' explanation for delay, finding they lacked proper death certificate documentation and faced administrative impediments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Pronouncement Of Order

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  4. 12-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP.M/2016/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CMP(M) No. 2016 of 2025 The court allowed the application to bring deceased respondent Om Prakash's legal representatives on record in the pending appeal. The court held that partial substitution of legal representatives does not cause abatement when the deceased's estate is sufficiently represented, relying on Supreme Court precedent establishing that all legal heirs need not be impleaded. The court accepted the applicants' explanation for delay, finding they lacked proper death certificate documentation and faced administrative impediments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case