W.P(Crl.) 728/2008 Page 1 Of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: February 10, 2011 Date of Decision: February 23, 2011 + W.P(Crl) No. 728/2008 % 23.02.2011 Shankar Dass Mimani ...Petitioner Versus State & Ors. ...Respondents Counsels: Mr. K.S. Pathani for petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for DDA JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER Crl.MA 388/2011 1. This application has been preferred by the son of the petitioner accompanied with an application for substituting him as legal heir of the petitioner. 2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner died on 11th June, 2009. On 9th July, 2009 when the matter was taken up, the counsel for the petitioner informed about the death of the petitioner and stated that steps would be taken to bring Lrs of the deceased petitioner on record. Thereafter, none appeared for the petitioner and this petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 28th October 2009 by this Court. 3. The present application for restoration has been preferred on behalf of the W.P(Crl.) 728/2008 Page 2 Of 3 petitioner by his son after delay of over 390 days of dismissal of the petition for non prosecution and after 537 days of the death of the petitioner. 4. The present writ petition was filed in 2008 with a prayer for issuing a mandamus to register a criminal case with CBI and directing it to investigate the matter qua disputes over the property transferred in the name of the respondent sometime in 1974. It is submitted by the applicant, son of deceased petitioner that his father had suffered a cerebral stroke in 1990 and consequently was left paralyzed and was never fully cured and remained confined to his bed till his death in 2009 and after that it was he who was prosecuting the case. 5. From this statement, it is apparent that father’s name was being used by the applicant since father was not capable of moving out of the bed for prosecuting the case. The applicant was very well aware of the case and was also aware of the death of his father. The applicant’s father had also filed several other cases against the respondents and the applicant had been appearing with counsel in other cases even after death of his father. It is apparent from the reply filed by respondents no.1 and 2 that the son of the petitioner (present applicant) had appeared in complaint case No. 4 of 1985 on 27th September 2010, 16th April, 2010, 21st October 2010 and 16th December 2010 and the same counsel was pursuing the writ petition as well as the complaint. 6. Looking at the fact that the applicant was well aware of this petition filed by his father and was in fact pursuing this and the other cases filed by his father and did not take steps to bring himself as legal representative of his father or to restore this petition, I find no force in this application. The application is hereby dismissed. Crl.MA Nos. 389-91/2011 W.P(Crl.) 728/2008 Page 3 Of 3 7. In view of dismissal of the application for restoration of the petition, these applications have become infructuous and are hereby dismissed as such. February 23, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd