died on
26.1.2000 and the petitioner No. 2, 3 and proforma
Opposite Party No. 5 filed an application under Order
22 Rule ... died on 26.1.2000. The petitioner No.
2, 3 and proforma Opposite Party No. 5 filed an
application Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code
Munshi, J.: This is a revisional application at the
instance of proforma Opposite Parties Nos.3 and 4 in the pre-
emption application, and they ... place Opposite Parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 were substituted.
Proforma Opposite Party No.5 in the revisional application is the
Opposite Party
actual payment besides payment of
litigation costs.
2.
The complaint
qua Proforma Opposite Party (now Proforma respondent in the appeal) was
dismissed with no order ... unfair trade
practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6.
Proforma Opposite
Party (hereinafter to be referred as Proforma Opposite Party/Opposite Party
Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company and
the Opposite Party No.4 Air Carrier/Appellant herein. The controversy between
the parties was regarding ... Appellant was arrayed as Opposite Party No.4 as a proforma
party. No relief was sought against the Appellant. State Commission allowed the complaint against
expired on 18.02.2013; she was only made a proforma party in the
suit and no relief was sought against her and therefore, her name ... therefore, it is preposterous to state that she is merely a proforma
party. It is prayed that application be dismissed.
5. I have considered
stated that the respondent no.2 Syndicate Bank is a proforma
party; accordingly service of the respondent no.2 Syndicate Bank was
dispensed with
petitioner is also posted at
Delhi. CBI is only a proforma party in this case. The petitioner is
neither challenging the trial instituted ... criminal case. In addition, respondent No.3 CBI is only the
proforma party in this case and the petitioner is neither challenging the
trial instituted
Kedia appeared on advance notice (respondents No.2 & 3 are
proforma parties) and considering the nature of the controversy and the
challenge
intervention before this Court.
4. If a person is arrayed as a party in Court it
cannot be merely for the luxury of sitting ... impleaded cannot gag her by characterizing her presence as a
mere proforma party. If the impleaded defendant has a common
cause with the plaintiff
Akhtar states that the respondent nos.
2 to 5 are the proforma parties. No relief has been granted to the
respondent
