Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J
Virendra Prakash Gupta – Appellant
Versus
N.D.GUPTA (Deceased) 1.Davendra Gupta and 19 others – Respondent
C.S.No.485 of 2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.V.Srimathi
For the Respondents: No representation for R17 to R20
Court permits the addition of parties when notice is served and no representation is made.
Headnote:The court examines the application to add respondents 17 to 20 as defendants in C.S.No.485 of 2001, referring to the notice served and the affidavit of service. The court allows the application based on the reasons stated therein.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to add parties to a case. (Para 1) |
| 2. service of notice and lack of representation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. application allowed. (Para 4) |
PRAYER: Application is filed to bring on record the respondents 17 to 20 the legal heirs of the deceased 13th defendant Latha Gupta, as party Defendants 19 to 22 in C.S.No.485 of 2001.
For Applicant(s): M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondent(s): No representation for R17 to R20
ORDER
This Application is filed to bring on record the respondents 17 to 20 as Defendants 19 to 22 in C.S.No.485 of 2001.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notice has been served on R17 to R20 and Affidavit of Service has also been filed.
3. The Registry has also made an endorsement that Court notice served on R17 to R20. Despite notice being served on R17 to R20, there is no representation for them.
4. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application, this application is allowed.
