Bench rejected an application to set aside a writ petition dismissal, holding that the petitioner failed to explain how an engaged advocate could not remove office objections within time.
Application to set aside the order dated 8th March, 2004, is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
(G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
Civil Application No.2526 of 2004
In
Writ Petition No.St.39644 of 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
order or directions and
Registrar’s order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A.Siddiqui h/f Shri M.P.Vashi for the
applicant.
--
CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
&
NARESH H.PATIL, JJ
DATED: 23rd August, 2006.
P.C.
1. This is an application for setting
aside the order dated 8th March, 2004
rejecting the petition. The petition was
rejected on account of the failure on the
part of the petitioner to remove office
objections.
2. The application discloses that the
petitioner is aged of 65 years and is a
resident of Nashik, and therefore, he could
not contact his advocate for a considerable
period. The intimation regarding office
- 2 -
objections was given to the petitioner but
due to personal difficulties, he could not
remove the office objections within time.
The application does not disclose as to what
were those personal difficulties.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner had
engaged the advocate and the application
nowhere discloses as to what had prevented
the advocate from removing office
objections. Once the party has engaged the
advocate, it is primarily for the advocate
to ensure that the office objections are
removed within the specified time, and the
explanation regarding failure thereof should
be disclosed in the application for setting
aside of the order of dismissal. As the
application nowhere discloses any such
explanation as regards the failure on the
part of the advocate to remove office
objections, nor about the efforts by the
petitioner to get the objections removed,
there is no case made out for recall of the
order dated 8th March, 2004. Hence, the
application is rejected.
(R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )
- 3 -
(NARESH H. PATIL, J )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application to set aside an order rejecting a writ petition should be allowed given the petitioner's inability to remove office objections due to personal difficulties and age.
Petitioner/ApPLICANT
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
NARESH H.PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court