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
14 paragraphs · 311 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner, the authorised representative of respondent in BP no. 540 of 2021 and leanred counsel for respondent in BP
no. 546 of 2021.
In BP No. 540 of 2021 a prayer has been made for extending the time to file reply. The prayer is allowed but it is made clear that three weeks' further
time is being granted by way of last opportunity failing which the right to file reply shall stand closed or it shall be renewed only on proper costs.
Since similar prayer has been made by learned counsel for respondent in BP No. 546 of 2021, three weeks' further time is granted for filing reply but
by way of last opportunity otherwise right to file reply shall stand closed and extension, if any, shall be only on costs.
Affidavit of service filed in BP No. 543 of 2021 shows valid service of notice on 13.11.2021 but nobody appears for the respondent.
Affidavit of service in BP No. 545 of 2021 shows that notice reached at the proper address but the adressee refused to accept the same on
13.11.2021. In the aforesaid facts, service of notice on 13.11.2021 is accepted as valid. Since nobody appears for the respondent in this matterÂ
also, in both the aforesaid petitions, time for appearacne is extended till the next date, failing which the order for exparte hearing may be passed.
In BP No. 539 of 2021, petitioner has not been able to service notice. As prayed, three weeks' further time is granted for serving fresh notice upon
the respondent, dasti and email in addtion. Affidavit of service should be filed wihtin four weeks.
Post the matter under the same head on 16.3.2022.
It will be open for the petitioner to file rejoinder by the next date in case reply is filed on behalf of any of the respondents.