JAGYAN SAHU @ JANNESWAR SAHU Vs. NITYANANDA BARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) S.R. of notice sent to opposite party No.5 by special messenger returned unserved as her husband refused to accept the same in presence of his wife. Hence, the service of notice on the said opposite party No.5 is held to be sufficient. Similarly, S.R. of notice sent to opposite party No. 3-Radha Govinda Barai through special messenger returned unserved as the said person refused to accept the same on the pretext that he is staying at Sambalpur. Hence, the service of notice on opposite party No. 3 is held to be sufficient. Notice sent to opposite party No. 4-Parbati Barai also returned unserved with an endorsement of the special peon deputed for the purpose that her family members refused to accept the same in her absence. Hence, the service of notice on opposite party No. 4 is also held to be sufficient. Notice sent to opposite party No. 6-Latika Barai through special peon returned unserved as nobody could tell about the said opposite party No.6.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since notice has been served on opposite party No.1 who is an advocate and represent other opposite parties, such service of notice on opposite party No.1 can be taken as notice to all other opposite parties as they are related as brothers and sisters. Since in this case opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have already entered appearance through advocate and also in view of the nature of prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition, the matter is taken up for hearing in presence of Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.