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
3 paragraphs · 229 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in T P No. 69 of 2020. Although final time granted for filing reply by respondent expired long back and even the extended time of two weeks granted on 16.8.2021 was not availed and no reply was filed within two weeks, in view of submission of learned counsel for respondent that the delay has occurred on account of shifting of his office and not for any reason attributable to the client, by way of last opportunity, three days' further time is granted for filing reply failing which the right to reply of respondent shall stand closed. If reply is filed, petitioner may file its rejoinder within three weeks thereafter.
In T P No. 68 of 2020, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that as per affidavit of service already filed, notice was served on respondent in the petition in the month of August 2021, but he has chosen not to appear and, therefore, order for ex-parte hearing may be passed. The prayer is reasonable. It is found that this respondent had sufficient time and opportunity to appear after notice but has chosen not to do so, the prayer for ex-parte hearing in T P No. 68 of 2020 is allowed.
Post the matter before the Court of Registrar on the date already fixed i.e. 5.1.2022.