(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Considering the limited controversy involved, as set out hereinafter, it would not be necessary to serve the unserved respondent nos.14, 15, 20, 38, 39 and 40. I find that at the highest, the respondent nos.6 and 7, who are original defendant nos.6 and 7 would be the contesting parties. They are served. However, none appears for them.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit Not.22/2014 in which there are 42 defendants. The present issue pertains to defendant nos.41 now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was said to be proprietor of Al Sharif Beef Centre.
(3.) The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent nos.6 and 7 have erected a Sports cum Commercial Complex by encroaching on the land belonging to the petitioner. It was contended that out of said complex, Shop no.14 was allotted to now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was running "Al Sharif Beef Centre", therein. It appears that on the death of Gause Mohidin Bepari, the petitioner could not bring his legal representatives on record within time. As such, the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay (Exh.118-D) along with an application Exh.119-D for bringing legal representatives of defendant no.41 on record. The later application enlists in all 5 legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.41 in para 2 of the application. Both these applications were rejected by the Trial Court by separate orders dated 29/06/2015.