Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1800 (JHR)

Md. Haider Ali v. Bilkish Khatoon

2019-10-23

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.A. No.148 of 2009 1. Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that so far as the respondent nos.1, 2, 8 and 16 are concerned, they have already appeared in the second appeal. He further submits that he had taken steps for substituted service upon respondent nos.3 to 7 by publication of notice in the newspaper namely Prabhat Khabar published in Ranchi-Simdega, affidavit to that effect has been filed. 2. However, it transpires from the order dated 08.04.2016, this second appeal was admitted and notice was issued upon the non-appearing respondents under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process. 3. In view of that order, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to take fresh steps for service of notice upon non-appearing respondent nos.3 to 7 by registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within three weeks after Dipawali Vacation, failing which, the Second Appeal shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. 4. Mr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the appellants submit that I.A. No.6636 of 2019 has been filed for substitution of legal heirs/successors of the respondent no.15. 5. It appears that the said I.A. is not on record. 6. Office is directed to place I.A. No.6636 of 2019 on the next date of listing. S.A. No.139 of 2009 7. Notices were issued upon the respondent nos.7 to 26. 8. Notices upon respondent nos.7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been received by the head of the family members and thus, the notices upon them are deemed to be validly served. 9. Notices upon respondent nos.9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 have been received by themselves and thus, the notices upon them are deemed to be validly served. 10. Notice upon respondent no.18 has been received by his daughter and thus, the notice of respondent no.18 is deemed to be validly served. 11. Notice of respondent no.22 has been received by his son and thus, notice upon him is deemed to be validly served. 12. Respondent No.26 is the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, notice upon him is received by his office clerk and thus, it is deemed to be validly served. 13. It has been submitted at bar that respondent no.23 had died, who was unmarried. 12. Respondent No.26 is the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, notice upon him is received by his office clerk and thus, it is deemed to be validly served. 13. It has been submitted at bar that respondent no.23 had died, who was unmarried. In pursuant to the order dated 08.03.2013 passed in Second Appeal No.148 of 2009 the name of respondent no.23 has been deleted. 14. In that view of the matter, there is no need to issue fresh notice upon respondent no.23. 15. In view of the above, office is directed to check, if any, respondents are still unserved, place this case before the Bench with regard to unserved respondents. S.A. No.160 of 2009 16. Notices were issued upon the respondent nos.6 to 24. 17. Notices upon respondent nos.6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 have been received by themselves. In that view of the matter, notices upon them are deemed to be validly served. 18. As per the office note, notices upon respondent nos.7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 22 have been received through their family members. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is directed to take fresh steps for service of notice upon respondent nos.7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 22 by registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within three weeks after Dipawali Vacation, failing which, the Second Appeal shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. 20. Returned copy, if any, will be utilized by the learned counsel for the appellant. 21. In view of the order dated 08.03.2013 in S.A. No.148 of 2009 there is no need to issue notice upon respondent no.23. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed the I.A. No.9559 of 2019 for substitution of legal heirs/successors of the respondent no.21. 23. It appears that the said I.A., is not on the record. 24. Office is directed to place I.A. No.9559 of 2019 on the next date of listing.