HARJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. RAVINDER SINGH ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the record would show that the summon in Form 4 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code were served upon the defendant on 9.1.2011.

(2.) Neither any appearance nor any Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant was filed. When the matter came up before the Joint Registrar on 21.2.2011, learned counsel for the plaintiff informed that a notice had been sent to him by Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. stating therein that appearance had been filed. Since neither any appearance nor any Vakalatnama in favour of Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. Advocates was on record, a notice was directed to be issued to Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. Thereafter, Vakalatnama in favour of Mr. B.S.Randhawa, Ms. Pukhraj and Mr. Atul Verma, Advocates, has been filed on 18.10.2011 and Ms. Pukhraj, Advocate, is present on behalf of the defendant.

(3.) Ms. Pukhraj has with her a photocopy of what purports to be an appearance on behalf of the defendant. However, the copy which she has with her does not have any diary number and she is not in a position to disclose diary number, if any, whereby the appearance may have been filed by the defendant.