Allahabad High Court
WRIB/308/2003 of KAUSHLENDRA PRATAP Vs D.D.C. FAIZABAD and 16 ORS. on 27 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 308 of 2003 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. (Order on C.M.A. No. 6 of 2025-Abatement, C.M.A. No. 4 of 2025- Delay, C.M.A. No. 5 of 2025-Substitution) 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. During the pendency of the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 308 of 2003
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
(Order on C.M.A. No. 6 of 2025-Abatement, C.M.A. No. 4 of 2025- Delay, C.M.A. No. 5 of 2025-Substitution)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, sole petitioner/Kaushlendra Pratap died, as such an application has been moved on behalf of his legal representative to be substituted as petitioner along with application for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in moving the same.
3. In view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay in moving the application for substituting legal representative of sole petitioner, abatement, if any, is set aside.
4. Accordingly, delay is condoned in moving application for substitution.
5. Further, cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for substitution is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for substitution is allowed, Let necessary substitution be made during course of the day. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : V.B. Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Atul Kr. Singh, Jai Prakash Singh, Krishan Mohan, R.N. Gupta, Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Vinai Kumar Bhatt Kaushlendra Pratap .....Petitioner(s) D.D.C. Faizabad And 16 Ors. .....Respondent(s)
(Order of on C.M.A. No. 7 of 2025 - Application for withdrawal of writ petition)
1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner presses this application for withdrawal of the writ petition.
3. It has been submitted that the matter has been settled and the cause of action does not survive and therefore, he presses for withdraawl of the writ petition.
4. In light of the above, the application for withdrawal of writ petition is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. November 27, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 308 of 2003 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench