AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 163 wordsLearned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 are connected. An application, moved under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, by Respondent is with no objection. In the interest of justice, it will be proper to adjudicate after hearing other side too. Hence, this application is being allowed.
As pleadings and evidences by both side have been filed, then after, at the stage of final argument, Counsel for Respondent did not appeared, though Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, were represented by a common Counsel but for Respondent No. 2, another Counsel has been engaged. Hence, under above pretext, as pleadings and evidence of both of the Respondents are complete, Petitioner is also said to have been completed its evidence, matter is to be heard, and decided on merits.
List the matter ‘for hearing’ on 23.01.2024.
Written submission, if any, by both side, after exchange, in between, may be filed, till above date of final hearing.