. Gavkar	has	informed	her	. that	the	petitioner	w	ants to		change
the	Counsel.	Mrs.	M	adhuri	Sanjay	Gavkar	is	present	in	the
Court.	We	find that	on	29th	July,	2004	the	record	shows	that
the	petitioner	appeared	in	person	and	at t	heir	requ	est	the
matter	was	adjourned.		Thereafte	r the	matter		came up		before
this	Bench on	16th	Mar	ch, 2003	. A	t the		request	of	the
petitioner	again	the ma	tter	was	adjourned	once		again to		22nd
March,	2005.	The	petiti	oner	app	eared	in	perso	n	sought
adjournme	nt, the	adjournm	ent	was	granted.		Simi	larly on		19th
April,	2005.	Today	when	matter	comes	up	same	state	ment	is
made	that they	want	to	e	ngage	another		Advocate.		The

petitioner had sufficient time if they wanted to engage

another lawyer.

2.	There is an	order of th	is Court d	ated 29th	Januar	y,
2004	whereby the	respo	ndent	No.1	had	agreed	to gi	ve	the
petitioner	fresh h	earing.	C	ounsel		appearing	for		the
respondent	No.1 states	that	fresh	hearin	g	has been	given	and	a

speaking order has been passed which has been communicated to

the petitioner.

3.	If t	hat be th	e case, t	hat woul	d be a fre	sh cause	of
action.	It	will	be	open	to	the	petiti	oner	to challen	ge	that
order inde	pendently,	if	he	is	so	adv	ised	and	therein	raise	all

points including the points raised herein. With the above

observation petition stands disposed of.

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶20

(S.P. KUKDAY, J.)

Kishor D.Keni v. Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Uthority

Case brief