Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jehangir D. Mehta vs The Real Nayak Sakh Sahkari Maryadit ... on 21 July, 2017
W.P.No.2840/2017
21.7.2017
Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on IA No. 2731/2017 an application to dispense with
service on respondent No.2 and for removal of the office
objection with the contention, that the respondent No.2 though was arrayed as a party in the arbitration proceedings, initiated at the instance of respondent No.1 but, no address was mentioned as her place of residence instead, the address of the petitioners have been mentioned. Petitioner neither knows Ms. Farida nor her whereabouts. Hence, he is not in a position to effect service on respondent No.2.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, IA is allowed. Service on respondent No.1 is dispensed with. However, the effect thereof shall be considered at the time of final hearing.
Issue notice to respondent No.1 on payment of process fees within seven working days.
List immediately after service on respondent No.1 for consideration of the interim relief.
(Rohit Arya) Judge M.Jilla.