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
8 paragraphs · 222 wordsAnubha Rawat Choudhary, J
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per tracking report of speed post-delivery, the notice issued to the opposite party nos.6 (a) and 6 (b) have been served. The learned counsel submits that in view of the tracking report of speed post, notice be accepted as validly served.
Considering the submissions, the notice upon the respondent nos.6 (a) and 6 (b) are accepted as validly served.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this CMP has been filed for restoration of CMP No.387 of 2018, which stood dismissed on account of non-removal of defects in terms of the order dated 06.12.2019. He submits that Mr. B. P. Titerbe, Advocate was the counsel in the writ petition as well as in the CMP, but unfortunately, he expired during Covid – 19. He submits that CMP No.387 of 2018 be restored.
The learned counsel for the State has no serious objection so far as prayer for restoration is concerned.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, time for removal of defects granted in CMP No.387 of 2018 vide order dated 06.12.2019 is extended till 12.01.2026.
If the defects in CMP No.387 of 2018 is removed during the extended time, post CMP No.387 of 2018 on 16.01.2026.
This CMP is disposed of.