[2025:RJ-JP:6898] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 11/2006 1. Syed Riyajuddin Chishti son of Shri Shanshuddin, aged 36 years, resident of 34/355 Gaffar Building Chhota Chotik, Khadim Mohallsh, Dargah Shareef, Ajmer 2. Syed Basheer Bon of Shri Shamshaddin, resident of 34/355, Gaffar, Building Chhota Chowk, Khadim Mohallah, Dargah Shareef, Ajmer ----Defendant-Appellant Versus 1. Chandra Prakash son of Shri Bhawarlai, Karta of Joint Hindu Family late Seth Bhawanlal Goyal, resident of House No.20/5 Hindu Mochi Mohallah, Ajmer. ...Plaintiff-respondent 2. Parsumal son of Shri Lalchand, resident of Shanti Nagar, Mlusar Road, Ajmer. 3. Nagar Parishad, Ajmer through Commissioner, Ajmer. ----Proforma-defendant-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari for Mr. M.M Ranjan, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Bhargawa for Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ishan Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/02/2025 1. Application No.1/2024 filed for abatement of appeal as contesting respondent-plaintiff Chandra Prakash expired on 07.10.2007. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent(s) submits that the appellants were in knowledge since 2008 about death of Chandra Prakash and they have already prayed for substitution of [2025:RJ-JP:6898] (2 of 2) [CFA-11/2006] legal heirs of Chandra Prakash before the trial Court wherein other proceedings are pending. She submits that despite knowledge since 2008, no efforts were made by the appellants to substitute legal heirs of contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants requests for time and he submits that time be granted to him so that he can take steps. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of material placed on record, I am of the considered view that when parties are in litigation in several proceedings and having knowledge about death of any of the party then the duty lies upon them to file application for substitution in all pending proceedings whether it is before the trial Court or Appellate Court. 5. Herein, the instant application is filed on 21.09.2024 but for the purpose of listing, this case was listed on 16.10.2024 after filing of instant application. Thereafter on 13.01.2025, the counsel for the appellant sought time to file reply to the aforesaid application. 6. Now after more than 16 years, no efforts were made for substitution of LRs of deceased respondent (sole plaintiff). Hence, the appeal stands abated but same is liable to be dismissed in abatement. 7. In view of aforesaid the appeal stands dismissed in abatement. 8. Misc. application also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/54