HAR KRISHAN THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
CMP.M/934/2026 · 2026-07-31
Sushil Kukreja
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18126 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18126 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Har Krishan Thakur & anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
CMP(M) No.934 of 2026 31.07.2026 Present: Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the applicants/appellants. Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
CMP(M) No.934 of 2026
As per report of the Registry, notice issued to respondents No.1, 2 & 4 received back duly served. However, there is no representation on their behalf, hence, they are proceeded against ex-parte. Heard. Having regard to the averments made in the application, which is duly supported with affidavit of applicant No.1, the same is allowed and the delay of 71 days’ in filing the appeal, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. FAO(MV)
No.
of 2026 (FAO(MV)ST 19027/26)
Appeal be registered.
Admit. Let post admission notice be issued to respondents No.1, 2 & 4, returnable within six weeks, on taking steps within a period of three days. List thereafter.
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge July 31, 2026 (V.Himalvi)