FAROOQ AHAMED Vs. MOHAMMED HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH order was pronounced in the abovesaid civil revision petition on 23.4.1993, just prior to the summer vacation, before I could sign the order, I felt further elucidation of the point involved was necessary and that it would also be better if notice also goes to the Government Pleader since the matter involves court-fee question. Accordingly, pursuant to my order dated 14.6.1993, after notice had gone to the Government Pleader, the case was argued by both the Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner, and I pass the following order, which only reiterates the relief given already, with a slight difference in the reasoning.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice of motion ordered, the respondents have been served privately in the third week of March itself. When service was sought to be made through court, the 1st respondent had refused to receive the notice. No doubt, with reference to the 2nd respondent, second batta was filed and it is not clearly known whether he was been served through court. However, in view of the fact that both the respondents have been served privately as stated above and in view of the fact the 1st respondent had refused to receive the notice and even the 1st respondent has not chosen to enter appearance I hold that the private service is sufficient. Accordingly, I heared the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Additional Government Pleader.