REV A PRABHUCHAND Vs. YESURATHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision application under Section 115, C.P.C. having been listed along with the application for vacation of the stay Order, appearance has been put on behalf of respondents.

(2.) learned counsel for respondents 1 to 10 states that respondent 11-rev. Harry john has not been the plaintiff in the suit or applicant to the application for interim relief before the trial court. It has been pointed out that rev. Harry john was impleaded in the suit as a formal party as 14th defendant. It has also been brought to my notice that before the trial court rev. Harry john was served with notice and he had put in appearance, and in the lower appellate court he refused service of notice. If he has been one of the defendants in the suit and defendants 1 to 13 have filed the revision petition and rev. Harry john's power vakalatnama could not be obtained by the revision petitioners in the present revision petition. So he has been impleaded only as formal party.

(3.) at this stage Mr. M. Papanna, learned counsel for the revision applicants, submitted that instead of considering the application for vacation of the stay Order, let the whole matter be decided and service of notice on respondent 11 be dispensed with.