S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Challenging orders dated 11.06.2009, 07.12.2012 and 18.12.2013 in Title Suit No. 181 of 2003, the present writ petition has been filed. Title Suit No. 181 of 2003 was filed for a declaration of title by adverse possession over the suit schedule property. In the title suit, the petitioner is defendant No. 2, who appeared on 21.02.2009 and he was granted time for filing written statement. The petitioner/defendant No. 2 however could not file written statement in spite of extended time and, consequently vide order dated 11 -6 -2009, he was debarred from filing written statement. An application was filed on 27.06.2012 seeking leave of the court for filing written statement however, the same was dismissed in default on 7 -12 -2012. The petitioner filed another application on 13 -9 -2013, which has also been dismissed on 18 -12 -2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Vide order dated 17.06.2015, notice was issued to the respondents and the petitioner was directed to serve dasti notice upon the respondents. The petitioner has filed affidavit stating that the respondent No. 1 refused to accept the dasti notice however, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have received the dasti notice. Insofar as, respondent No. 2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she could not be served personally. It is stated that respondent No. 2 is a pro forma respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. Prayer seeking deletion of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties is allowed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The Registry has also put up note, which indicates that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been validly served.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;