Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARAT JI AND ANOTHER versus SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharat Ji And Another v. Smt. Savitri Devi And Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 2216 of 1982 [2006] RD-AH 12125 (25 July 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.

1. Civil Misc. Application No. 5244 of 1990 (dt. 13.9.1990)

2. Civil Misc. Application No. 5245 of 1990 (dt. 13.9.1990)

3. Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1396 of 1994 (dt. 24.3.1994)

4. Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No.121849 of 2005

Perused the Office Report dated 11.7.2006 in regard to service of notices stated to have been sent by Registered Post A.D. pursuant to the order dated 2.3.2006.

The said Report shows that the notice issued to the proposed respondent no. 3/2/3 has been duly served.

As regards the proposed respondent no. 1/5, the said Report, interalia, states that neither undelivered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card has been received back after service.

In view of the said Report, service of notice on the proposed respondent no. 1/5 is deemed to be sufficient.

As regards the notices sent to the proposed respondents nos. 2/2 to 2/11, the said Office Report shows that the said notices have been returned back with the remark that the name of the father of the addressees had been wrongly mentioned.

A perusal of the notices sent to the proposed respondents nos. 2/2 to 2/11 as also the envelopes wherein the said notices had been sent by Registered Post A.D. shows that the name of the father of the proposed respondents nos. 2/2 to 2/11 was mentioned as Maikoo Lal.

Shri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants fairly states that the name of the father of the proposed respondents nos. 2/2 to 2/11 should have been mentioned as Jagannath (proposed respondent no. 2/1) who is the husband of the deceased defendant-respondent no.2 (Smt. Gayatri Devi).

In the circumstances, let fresh notices be issued to the proposed respondents nos. 2/2 to 2/11 by Registered Post A.D..

Notices will be issued fixing 4.12.2006.

Steps will be taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants within eight weeks, failing which, the case will be listed before the Court under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court immediately on the expiry of the said period.

As regards the Office Report  dated 11.7.2006 in regard to service of notices on the respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/4 as also the proposed respondents nos.3/2/2 and 3/2/7, the matter will be considered on the next date of listing.

List on 4.12.2006.

Dt. 25.7.2006

Safi (S.A. 2216/1982)


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.