10-OCT-2026
|
Application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC called. The plaintiffs were present along with their learned counsel and submitted a statement along with a copy of the newspaper publication against defendants No. 2 to 6. An order was passed on a separate sheet. Defendant No. 1 was present along with his learned counsel. The process issued to defendants No. 2 to 6 was returned duly served, and the service was held to be sufficient. Defendants No. 4 and 5 were present and submitted their written statement (W.S.). An order was passed thereon. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 6, despite service through publication, were called absent. Defendants No. 7 to 10, despite service, were also called absent. The acknowledgment due (A.D.) regarding official defendant No. 11 was received. The DDA was absent; however, a memo of appearance had already been filed on behalf of defendants No. 7 to 11. Arguments on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC had already been heard. The order was passed and announced in open Court and is attached as Ex. No. _. The application was dismissed. |
For Orders |
0 |
0 |
SCJ / Assistant Sessions Judge, Warrah
|