IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No 46 of 1985 =============================================================== GULAMAL MADHAVMAL Appellant(s) Versus KHEMCHAND K THARWANAI & 4 Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR DD VYAS as ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SH SANJANWALA as ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2-5 RULE NOT RECD BACK for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI Date : 13/06/2011 ORAL ORDER
1. It appears that earlier, vide order dated 09.07.2008, the appellant was directed to serve respondent No.3 by R.P.A.D., however, learned advocate Mr.Deep Vyas for the appellant submits that he has no instructions as to whether the said service was effected or not. It appears that thereafter, vide order dated 09.08.2010, again fresh notice of Rule was issued to respondent No.3, however, as per the endorsement on the board, the said Rule has not been received back.
2. Under the circumstances, let fresh notice of Rule be issued to respondent No.3, returnable on 04.07.2011.
permissible.
(BELA TRIVEDI, J.) Hitesh