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
12 paragraphs · 227 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in respect of M.A Nos. 502 to 504 of 2021 arising from BP Nos.
604, 605 and 612 of 2021 respectively.
After hearing learned counsel for the concerned parties in respect of issue raised by respondent no. 2 in these three petitions that they are not
necessary or proper party, it appears that in similar facts and circumstances and after considering similar submissions, prayer of respondent no. 2 in
several identical petitions for deletion has been allowed. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon order dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. No. 76
of 2021 in BP No. 107 of 2021.
Considering that all the facts are similar, the issue raised by respondent no. 2 against their impleadment is allowed in their favour. Respondent no.
2 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents in BP Nos. 604, 605 and 612 of 2021. Amended memo of parties may be filed within three
weeks.
Let the matter be listed before the Court of Registrar on 3.3.2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petitions ready for hearing.
Respondent no. 1 has already filed its reply. Some delay in filing reply by respondent no. 1 is condoned. Let the replies be taken on record. As
prayed, four weeks' time is granted for filing rejoinder.