Delhi High Court - Orders
Sohan Lal vs Smt Vinita Nautiyal on 15 January, 2019
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 218/2017
SOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.L.S.Solanki, Advocate
versus
SMT VINITA NAUTIYAL ..... Respondent
Represented by: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 15.01.2019
1. Respondent is not served as address was found incomplete.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the address mentioned in the memo of parties is the same as furnished by the respondent while executing the personal bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court.
3. Trial Court Record has already been received.
4. Further a perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that in the personal bond furnished by the respondent Vinita Nautiyal, her address mentioned was C-5/41, House No.302, Top Floor, Rama Vihar, Delhi-81.
5. It is apparent that an incomplete address was given by the petitioner of the respondent. On the fresh address of the respondent being filed by the petitioner by way of amended memo of parties, issue notice to the respondent on the petitioner taking steps through ordinary and dasti process, CRL.L.P. 218/2017 page 1 of 2 registered AD and speed post returnable on 28th August, 2019.
6. Court notice be also issued to Mr.Surender Singh Rawat, S/o Late B.S.Rawat R/o M-2989, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi-110023 who has furnished the surety bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 15, 2019 mamta CRL.L.P. 218/2017 page 2 of 2