R. R. K. TRIVEDI AND M. KATJU, JJ.

( 1 ) NOTICES to respondents were directed to be issued by order dated 6. 3. 1987. However, as per office report dated 2. 9. 1987, petitioner failed to take steps for service on respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be granted time to take steps for service on respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and the steps could not be taken inadvertently as the fact was not brought to his notice. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is pending since 1987. In the meantime, the legal position on which basis the objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner has changed in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in 1990 RD 291. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner as time-barred only on the technical ground that Section 5 of the limitation Act is not applicable. The objection of the petitioner under Rule 285-I and Section 5 application has not been decided on merit. The respondents 5 to 7 shall get full opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner and no prejudice shall be caused to them. Considering the above facts and to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document