SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no. 4 though has been served through the mother, but the interest of other respondents is identical to respondents no. 1, who is being represented by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat. So, service on the respondent no. 4 is also deemed sufficient.

(2.) Since delay condonation application (CLMA 2647/2016) is not being seriously opposed, hence the same is allowed. Delay in preferring this second appeal is condoned.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of admission of this second appeal.