TARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. GUR BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate who has filed his power on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3. The power is taken on record. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that opposite parties 2 and 4, though not served, are merely proforma for the purposes of adjudication of present petition which may be heard finally without notices being served upon them. However, it is a relevant fact that earlier vide order dated 26.08.2019, notices had been issued to the said opposite parties and office report dated 04.10.2019 indicates that undelivered notices have not yet been received back indicating service of notice upon opposite parties 2 and 4. However, in terms of explanation to Rule 12 Chapter VIII of the Rules of this Court, service of notices upon opposite parties 2 to 4 is deemed sufficient.

(2.) Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 states that he is waving his right to file counter affidavit and that the petition may be disposed of on basis of material on record. Due to such statement, the petition is being decided finally at admission stage itself with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Under challenge is the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others) whereby Application No.A-146 seeking amendment in the memorandum of appeal has been rejected.