Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022272024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/624/2024 ON THE DEATH OF USHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM AYODHYA BHAGAT, HER LEGAL HEIRS KANCHAN BHAGAT S/O LATE RAM AYODHYA BHAGAT, C/O SHIVER STUDY MATERIALS, NEAR TUNIA RIVER BRIDGE, BHAWLAGURI, TUNIA MARKET, P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 783381. VERSUS ALOK KUNDU SON OF ANIL KUNDU, R/O TUNIAPAR, P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SANCHETI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, Linked Case : RSA/111/2017 USHA DEVI and 11 ORS. W/O LATE RAM AYODHYA BHAGAT 2: KANCHAN BHAGAT S/O LATE RAM AYODHA BHAGAT BOTH ARE R/O C/O SHIVER STUDY MATERIALS NEAR TUNIA RIVER BRIDGE BHAWLAGURI TUNIA MARKET Page No.# 2/3 P.O. NEW BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783381 ON THE DEATH OF RAM PRATAP ROY WHO EXPIRED ON 05-10- 2012 HIS LEGAL HEIRS 3: SMI MACHHIA DEVI 4: JOY KRISHNA ROY 5: JOYLAL ROY 6: JAY PRASAD ROY 7: SHIV PRASAD ROY 8: VAKIR ROY 9: BINAY ROY SL. NO. 3 IS THE WIFE AND SL. NO. 4 TO 9 ARE SONS OF LATE RAM PRATAP ROY ON THE DEATH OF HAREKRISHNA ROY S/O LATE RAM PRATAP ROY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 10: RAJ KUMARI DEVI 11: SANJIDA KUMAR 12: RAJIV KUMAR SL. NO. 10 IS THE WIFE AND 11 and 12 ARE THE SONS OF LATE HAREKRISHNA ROY ALL ARE R/O VILL. RUPNARA YANPUR P.O. KARNAUTI VIA BASUDEVPUR CHANDER P.S. MEHNAR DIST. VAISHALI BIHAR PIN 844501 VERSUS ALOK KUNDU and ANR. S/O ANIL KUNDU Page No.# 3/3 VILL. TUNUAPAR P.O. P.S. and DIST. BONGAIGAON PIN 783380 ASSAM. 2:SAMPATRAJ KOTHARI S/O SRI SOHANLAL KOTHARI R/O BONGAIGAON TOWN P.O. P.S. and DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783380 ------------ Advocate for : MR.S DEY Advocate for : MR.S S SHARMASr.Adv.R-1 appearing for ALOK KUNDU and ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. R.C. Sanchati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Mr. R.C. Sanchati, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has instructions to withdraw the application and accordingly makes endorsement to the same effect. In view of the aforesaid endorsement made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the interlocutory application for substitution of the legal heirs of the appellant no. 1 stands dismissed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant