Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM BALI SAHU versus INDRAPATI & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Bali Sahu v. Indrapati & Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 240 of 1981 [2006] RD-AH 10108 (23 May 2006)

 

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

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Pursuant to the order dated 30.1.2006, the case is listed today.

Perused the Office Report dated 20.5.2006 (Item No. I) in regard to service of notice stated to have been issued to the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 on the Appeal and the Stay Application by Registered Post A.D. fixing 20.11.1991.

In view of the said Report, service of notice on the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 is held to be sufficient.

Perused the Office Report dated 20.5.2006 (Item No. II) in regard to service of notice stated to have been issued to the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 on the Delay Condonation Application and the Substitution Application, mentioned in the order dated 30.1.2006.

In view of the said Report, service of notice on the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 on the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application and the aforementioned Substitution Application is held to be sufficient.

Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate states that on 22.5.2006 he has filed counter affidavit alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 in reply to the aforementioned two applications. The said counter affidavit and Vakalatnama are not on record.

Office is directed to trace the same, and place them on record.

List on 27.7.2006.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned applications may file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the aforementioned counter affidavit, stated to have been filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2.

The name of Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 will be shown in the cause list when the case is listed next.

Dt. 23.5.2006

safi


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.