Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MURTAJA & ANOTHER versus MOHD. AUWAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Murtaja & Another v. Mohd. Auwal & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 2454 of 1981 [2007] RD-AH 2253 (12 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

12-02-2007 Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.  

Pursuant to the order dated 24-1-2007, the case is listed today.

The Office has submitted its Report dated 9-2-2007 regarding service of notices issued to the plaintiffs-respondents on Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 217843 of 2004 by Registered Post A.D., pursuant to the order dated 6-1-2006 read with the orders dated 22-3-2006 and 24-7-2006.

As regards the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the said Office Report dated 9-2-2007 states that neither undelivered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Cards have been returned back after service.

In the circumstances, service of notice on the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is deemed to be sufficient, in view of the provisions of Explanation II to Rule 12 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court.

It is pertinent to note that Sri R.U. Ansari, Advocate is already appearing in the present case on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

As regards the plaintiff-respondent No. 3, the said Office Report dated 9-2-2007 states that the notice, sent to the plaintiff-respondent No. 3, has been returned back unserved with the endorsement that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is residing in "Saudi". The said endorsement is as follows :

"SAUDI RAHTE HAIN ATAH WAPAS KIYA JAAY"

As noted above, Sri R.U. Ansari, Advocate is already appearing on behalf of all the plaintiffs-respondents including the plaintiff-respondent No. 3. Therefore, no fresh notice is required to be sent to the plaintiff-respondent No. 3.

Service of notice on the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is, in the circumstances, held to be sufficient.

The aforementioned Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 217843 of 2004 will be listed for consideration after two weeks.

Second Appeal No. 2454 of 81/AK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.