This registrar's order in an interlocutory civil application allowed the application for substituted service of the respondent, as private and court service efforts failed.
Civil Application allowed to permit substituted service of Respondent No. 6.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4814 OF 2017
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Court’s or Judge’s orders Registrar’s orders
Shyamsunder Solanki i/b Pratap Patil, Advocate for applicant is present.
CORAM : AJIT N. MARE
REGISTRAR (JUDL-I)
Date : 18 th FEBRUARY 2019
Perused.
Heard Advocate for the applicant.
Considering that the efforts to serve
Respondent No. 6 privately as well as through the court did not yield positive result and in view of the statement, in Civil Application, it appears that only mode available to serve Respondent No. 6 is by way of substituted service.
Hence Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a'
REGISTRAR (JUDL-I)
RJ-I/GCI/18.02.2019
Applicant
Respondent No. 6
AJIT N. MARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
