AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in both the petitions. Nobody appears for respondent no. 1. In
B.P. No. 468 of 2021 respondent no. 1 was served with fresh notice between 12th and 21st October, 2021 through various modes. In the other petition respondent. 1 was served between 23rd to 27th July, 2021. In spite of ample opportunity, they have chosen not to appear so far. The prayer for ex-parte hearing is allowed. Both the petitions shall be heard ex-parte qua respondent no. 1.
Today the matter has been heard in respect of M.A. No. 440 of 2021 in B.P. No. 468 of 2021 and M.A. No. 441 of 2021 in B.P. No. 470 of 2021
whereby respondent no. 2 in the concerned petitions has sought its deletion from the array of respondents.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on various orders allowing similar prayers of respondent no. 2 in similar petitions, including an order passed on 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. 76 of 20221 arising out of B.P. No. 107 of 2021. It is clear that in similar situation those orders were passed allowing similar prayers. Since the submissions and facts are almost similar, the prayer made on behalf of respondent no. 2 seeking deletion is allowed. The concerned M.As. are allowed and disposed of accordingly. Amended memo of parties should be filed by the petitioner within
three weeks.
Post the matter before the Court of Registrar on 17th February, 2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petition ready for
hearing.