Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1996 (RAJ)

Mahesh Chandra v. Indersen

2008-08-22

VINEET KOTHARI

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2007 whereby the learned trial court stayed the proceedings of the suit and directed the plaintiff to file registered address of the defendant No.11 to 19 newly added in the suit upon the application of the defendants. The defendants No.11 to 19 while seeking impleadment in the suit did not even furnish the complete address in their application and, therefore, the plaintiff could not be asked to search their complete address. It was the duty of the defendants, who sought impleadment in the suit to have given their complete address in the application itself and in the absence of that, it was not expected of the plaintiff to get any summon served on such defendants. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the defendants No.11 to 19 to give their complete address before the learned trial court within two weeks from today and thereafter the learned trial court shall issue fresh summons to them and proceed with the trial. If such addresses are not supplied by the defendants within two weeks, they shall be deleted from the array of defendants.