Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for substitution is maintainable where the respondent was already / deceased when the Special Leave Petition was filed, and what remedy is available to the petitioner in such a situation.
Analysis: The operative procedural provisions for substitution under Order XVI Rules 8 and 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 apply only where the respondent was alive when the Special Leave Petition was instituted and later dies or undergoes a change of status. Where the respondent was already dead on the date of filing, those rules do not govern the situation. The appropriate course is to seek amendment of the Special Leave Petition so that the legal representatives are brought on record, and if the request is beyond limitation, an accompanying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay must be filed and supported by a satisfactory explanation. The interlocutory applications for amendment and delay were examined on that basis and the explanation was accepted.
Conclusion: The substitution application was treated as an application for amendment of the Special Leave Petition, the delay was condoned, and the applications were allowed in favour of the petitioner.