The endorsement on the Board indicates that notice has been served by Direct Service upon respondents Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Dilip M.Ahuja, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that though the notices have been accepted on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3, the said respondents have refused to sign upon the same.
It is noticed that on 21.06.2012, this Court issued notices making them returnable on 10.07.2012. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been permitted to serve the notices by direct service, therefore, it cannot be understood how the notices are stated to be served by Direct Service upon respondents Nos.1 to 3, as endorsed on the Board and submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Further, there is no endorsement on the Board regarding service of notices send by the Court.
Registry shall clarify whether notices have been issued through the process of the Court pursuant to the order dated 21.06.2012, and what is the status. It shall also be clarified how notices were permitted to be issued by Direct Service, that has not been granted by the order dated 21.06.2012.
List on 17.07.2012.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top