Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. (Now Telangana State) vs. T. Adinarayanna And Ors. Etc. Etc

ITEM NO.1716

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 9034/2018

ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA

VERSUS

GOVT. OF A. P. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.9034 of 2018 ONLY TO BE LISTED.)

Date: 19-05-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR [IN CHAMBER]

• For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Atishi Dipankar, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, AOR Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR M/S. Veritas Legis, AOR Mr. S.gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Anand, Adv.

Respondent(s)

Appellant(s)

SECTION XII-A

COURT NO.14

Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Raghav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The office report dated 15.05.2023 discloses that the counsel for the appellant has not filed spare copies in respect of proposed impleading respondents. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that it is not "the learned counsel for the appellant" but it is the "learned counsel appearing for the applicant" had to be reflected in the report. Said report cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that in pending matter wherein interlocutory application is filed the copy of the such application is served on the counsel/counsels appearing for the parties would suffice until and unless such notice is ordered on any third parties. Secondly, in the instant case all the parties who are represented by the respective learned advocates have been served with the interlocutory application by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants namely proposed impleading respondents and as such furnishing of spare copies in respect of proposed impleading respondents would not arise. The objection raised in office report stands over ruled or rejected.

It is made explicitly clear that there is no need or necessity for furnishing spare copies to be filed for issuance of notice to any of the parties since they are already represented by the respective learned advocates and have already received copy of the application.

Application(s) for impleadment be heard alongwith the appeal.

(SNEHA) (RENU KAPOOR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR