SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.
(2.) From the affidavit-of-service it reveals that respondent no.1 although refused to accept service is represented by an advocate. So far as the respondent no.2 is concerned, he has refused to accept the registered article. Therefore, this should be considered as good service. So far as the respondent no.3, B.L. and L.R.O. is concerned, it is informed that at no point of time B.L. and L.R.O. contested either in the trial court or in the lower appellate court below. Although, notice has been sent under registered cover in July, 2018 and more than a month has elapsed, no one appears for the said respondent no.3. Therefore, this may be presumed that service has been effected.In Re: C.A.N. 4354 of 2018
(3.) This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the second appeal before this Court. The appellants/petitioners have filed this appeal challenging a judgment of reversal passed by the learned appellate court below. It is the consistent case of the plaintiffs that Shib Shankar Mishra, the appellant/petitioner no.1, who has affirmed the affidavit in support of the application on behalf of the other plaintiffs, always conducted the case and even at the trial, the plaintiff no.1 deposed on behalf of the other plaintiffs as P.W.1. This is borne out from the deposition and cannot be disputed by the defendant/respondent no.1 herein.;