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
9 paragraphs · 218 wordsBP No. 13 of 2016
Case taken up. Learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 are connected.
A request by Respondent No. 1, is for giving him a legal aid and directing Petitioner for supply of a copy of Petition.
Whereas, Learned Counsel for Petitioner mentioned that it is a deliberate avoidance and lingering by Respondent No. 1. Previously, there was an order for proceeding ex-parte. Even after sufficient service by way of Police Mode, none is present, except this request.
Respondent No. 1 is being directed to be present in person on 08.05.2024 for making a request, if any, or proceeding with further hearing. For and on behalf of Respondent No. 2, afresh Vakalatnama is to be filed by tomorrow. Let it be filed so.
BP Nos. 24 to 27 of 2016
Case taken up. Learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 are connected in this bunch of cases.
2 Deliberate avoidance by Respondent No. 1, even after issuing notice, through Police Mode, is being said to be there, and an affidavit of this effect with regard to service of notice over Respondent No. 1 is to be filed within two weeks. Let it be filed so.
List the matter on 08.05.2024 “for further hearing”.