Final Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: RCT ARCT 26/25
Vinod Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar Farshwal
19.05.2026
Present: Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj, Ld. Proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Karan Kanwal, Ld. Proxy Counsel for
LRs of respondent.
Pass over is requested on behalf of proxy counsel
for appellant.
Allowed. Matter be taken up at the end of the board.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central)
THC, Delhi/19.05.2026
At 11.15 AM
Present: Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj, Ld. Proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Karan Kanwal, Ld. Proxy Counsel for LRs of
respondent.
Ld. Counsel for appellant has not attended the
Court.
Heard and considered.
There is an application on record under Order 22
Rule 4 CPC stating therein that respondent Vijay Kumar
Farshwal has expired at the time of presentation of the appeal
itself. The legal heirs of the respondent namely (a) Abhishek
Chaudhary, (b) Ashish Chaudhary and (c) Ankur Chaudhary are
required to be impleaded. Amended memo of parties is filed on
-- 1 of 2 --
record.
The application is misconceived as neither it is
stated as to when the respondent had expired nor his death
certificate is placed on record. It seems that respondent was not
alive even at the time of institution of the appeal. The appeal was
presented on 26.11.2024. In these circumstances, I find no
justification to allow the application and appeal accordingly
deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the same was
presented against a dead person.
Be that as it may. I have also considered the
question of maintainability of the appeal as raised in the
ordersheet dated 14.02.2025.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the appeal is
held to be not legally maintainable and has become infructuous.
Same is dismissed accordingly.
TCR be sent back with copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central)
THC, Delhi/19.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --