SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Jhk) 710

P.P.BHATT
Anil Kumar Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Prasad Mehta – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.K. Lal, for the petitioner.
M. Sohail Anwar, Sr. Adv. and S.B. Haque, for the respondent No.3.

ORDER

By the Court.- The present application is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 12.07.2010, passed by the Sub-Judge-1, Hazaribagh in T.S. No. 104 of 2009, whereby the learned Sub-Judge has rejected the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant No.6, petitioner herein, by way of his written statement filed on 12th April, 2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Perused the papers.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant pointed out that the respondent No.2 died during the pendency of this writ petition and his legal heirs have been substituted and notices have been duly served on the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-respondent No. 2. It is submitted that though notices have been duly served upon the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-respondent No.2, but none appears on their behalf. So far as respondent No.3 (original defendant No.8) is concerned, he is represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Sohail Anwar.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 (original defendan






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top