Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sovran Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 21 January, 2016
Cr.R.No.707/2015
1
21/01/2016
Shri Jagdish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/
State.
Having heard on I.A.No.8257/2015, petitioners' application for appropriate direction to ignore the default raised by the office.
For the reasons stated in the I.A., in the available circumstances, by allowing I.A., such alleged default is hereby ignored.
On the request of the petitioners' counsel, he is also heard on I.A.No.8257/2015, petitioners' application to implead the CBI, VYAPAM CELL, Bhopal as respondent No.2 in the array of the petition.
For the reasons stated in the I.A., the same is allowed and the petitioners' counsel is directed to implead the CBI, VYAPAM CELL, Bhopal as respondent No.2 in the array of the revision petition within seven days. Meanwhile, copy of the revision memo and other documents be given to the standing counsel of the CBI Shri Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Gwalior and the office is directed to reflect the name of such counsel as counsel of the respondent No.2 in the daily cause list while listing the matter in future.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge Judge
SP