Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Bajrangwala vs Alli Moosa Rajah and Others

D.A. Mehta, J.—On 1.4.2010, the following order was made.

The record reveals that rule, which was is sued by this Court on 03.02.2010 permitting service by the applicant directly has been served on the Power of Attorney Holder of the original Petitioners, opponent Nos. 1 to 10 herein, and hence , none is present on their behalf. In the circumstances, it would be just and fair if fresh notice of rule is issued qua opponent Nos. 1 to 10, the original Petitioners, and the applicant is directed to effect ser vice on the original Petitioners and not the Power of Attorney holder .

Accordingly, fresh notice of RULE re turnable on 30.04 .2010 qua opponent Nos. 1 to 10 only. Direct service permitted, subject to the applicant effecting ser vice only on the original Petitioners and not the Power of Attorney holder.

Learned advocate for the applicant fairly states that the direct service packet was handed over to the applicant but thereafter, there are no instructions as to whether the service has been effected on the original Petitioners or not.

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of theissue raised, the applications are rejected leaving it opento the applicants to initiate appropriate action inaccordance with law. The applications are rejected. Rule discharged.