DR. GOLAM HASNEN SON OF LATE DR. GOLAM MUSTAFA P.S Vs. ANATH BANDHU PAL & 2 ORS.. SON OF LATE SANJOY KRISHNA PAL 96A, SWINHOE LANE, P.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice sent to Respondent No. 2 not received back and none appeared for Respondent No. 3 even after service of notice.

(2.) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that he would be filing his Vakalatnama today with the registry and he is ready to argue. He further submitted that he has no objection in setting aside impugned order and allowing appellant to participate in the proceedings except objection of cost. Learned counsel for the appellant agreed to this suggestion. Presence of Respondent No.2 & 3 is not required as order has been passed by learned State Commission only against appellant for proceeding ex-parte against him.

(3.) As learned State Commission vide impugned order has proceeding ex-parte against the appellant on account of non-appearance and learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has no objection in setting aside aforesaid order except objection of cost, I deem it appropriate to set aside impugned order, subject to cost.