JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:--- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1 inspite of service though respondent No. 1 the only contesting respondent.

2. When the matter was called out for final hearing on 25-1-2001 none appeared for the respondent No. 1. In order to afford a reasonable opportunity to respondent No. 1, though it was not necessary in view of proper service, however this Court by an order dated 25-1-2001 directed the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to issue telegraphic notice to respondent No. 1 intimating the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, notice was issued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He intimated next date of hearing as 31-1-2001. Accordingly , the matter was called out for final hearing on 31-1-2001.

4. Even on 31-1-2001, none appeared for respondent No. 1. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner was again requested to issue fresh notice by Speed Post. Accordingly, 2nd notice was issued to respondent No. 1. An affidavit showing issuance of notice along with acknowledgment evidencing receipt of the said notice are placed on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of sufficient, proper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document