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
5 paragraphs · 235 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that notices could not be served upon respondent no. 1 earlier in B P Nos. 445, 449, 452 and 455 of 2021. As prayed, let fresh notices be issued on respondent no. 1 in these petitions. Affidavit of service should be filed within four weeks. In other matters, affidavit of service has been filed and it has been submitted that all the respondents have been served with notices between 6.6.2021 and 29.6.2021.
Today Mr. Nasir Husain, Advocate has appeared for respondent no. 2 only in B P No. 456 of 2021. As prayed, he may file vakalatnama and reply/appropriate application within four weeks.
Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 in several matters submits that by mistake he could not file MA in B P Nos. 452 and 454 of 2021 to seek deletion from the array of respondents. He may file such application within two weeks, as prayed. Similar application have already been filed in five other matters. On behalf of petitioner, a reply to the MAs may be filed within four weeks, as prayed. If required, rejoinder may be filed before the next date. Prayer for ex-parte hearing against non-appearing respondents shall be considered on the next date if they do not appear by then.
Post the matters under the same head on 28.10.2021.
Interim orders to continue till the next date.