R H TRIPATHI Vs. NIRANJANSINGJI SAJJANSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .Sandip C.Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 has been deleted vide Court's conditional order dtd.19/10/1988. None for the respondent No.2, though served.

(2.) FROM the records it would appear that the respondent No.1 namely Niranjansing Sajjansing was driver -cum -owner of the offending vehicle, but he could not be served and as no appropriate steps were taken by the appellant, this Court vide its order dtd.19/10/1988 directed that if appropriate steps are not taken right in time, the name of respondent No.1 shall stand deleted. Unfortunately, appropriate steps were not taken, therefore, the name of the respondent No.1 namely Niranjansing Sajjansing stood deleted.

(3.) MR .Shah, learned counsel for the appellant submits that because of some lapses on the part of the appellant or his counsel, the name of the respondent No.1 stood deleted, therefore, the appellant be allowed to join the respondent No.1 and serve him at his correct address.