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 · 99 wordsSanjay Kumar, CJ
Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel, appearing for the sole appellant, states that service of notice has been effected upon respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
Ms. Babita Th., learned counsel, appears on caveat for respondent No. 1. She points out that there are defects in the description of parties in the cause title of the second appeal, inasmuch as respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who should have been shown as proforma respondents, have been named as contesting respondents.
Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel, seeks time to rectify the defects by filing a miscellaneous case.
Post on 27-01-2023.