KALIKA RAI Vs. D.D.C. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner. Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondents has placed before the Court copy of the order dated 25.8.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 759 of 1976 further a copy of the order dated 27.10.2009 and 13.11.2009 passed in the present writ petition. Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh has prayed for adjournment of this case in or­der to enable him to file application for recalling the order dated 13.11.2009.

(2.) THIS writ petition is of the year 1975. Learned Counsel for the respondents had knowledge of the order dated 25.8.2009 and the other orders in the year 2009 itself as is apparent from the date of the issuance of the certified copy. It has been stated by Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh that a registered letter was sent to his client from his office but his client has not re­sponded and as such some further time be allowed. I am not inclined to grant any time in view of the facts stated above.

(3.) IT has been submitted by Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court was to the effect that firstly Kalika Rai was the adopted son of Surajbali Rai, the Adoption Deed had been validly executed and lastly that Smt. Pau­hari was not the daughter of Surajbali Rai.