This order dismissed an appeal against an order where the High Court refused to restore a revocation petition due to counsel's repeated adjournment requests and refusal to argue the pending matter.
Notice of Motion disposed of with no order as to costs; Appellant's appeal dismissed.
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.
nma2994.11.sxw
1
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2994 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 594 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 151 OF 2010 IN REVOCATION PETITION NO. 46 OF 2009 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 60 OF 2004
Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar
....Appellant.
Vs.
Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar & Ors.
...Respondents.
Mr. S. Mishra i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. None for the Respondents.
CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 NOVEMBER, 2011.
P.C. :-
This is a Notice of Motion taken out for condonation of delay.
Delay is of 225 days. In order to find out whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the Appellant, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on the merits of the Appeal. This Appeal
2 nma2994.11.sxw
ssm
is directed against the order dated 20 December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2 The Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009 was before the Court. It was on the board of the Court for final hearing. On 13 occasions every time the matter was adjourned at the instance of the advocate. On 1 October 2010 when the matter was before the learned Single Judge, again adjournment was sought. The learned Single Judge refused to adjourn the matter, the advocate refused to argue the matter and therefore, Revocation Petition was dismissed. Notice of Motion No. 151 of 2010 was taken out for restoration of the Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009. It is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20 December 2010 that she offered to restore the Revocation Petition provided both the advocates were willing to argue the Revocation Petition on the same day. The advocate for the Petitioner refused to argue the Revocation Petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Petitioner is merely interested in prolonging the proceedings and refused to restore the Revocation Petition.
3 In our opinion the course adopted by the learned Single Judge is
3 nma2994.11.sxw
ssm
perfectly right and that is the only course of action available to the Court in view of the peculiar attitude adopted by the Advocate. No
useful purpose therefore will be served by condoning the delay.
4 Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar
Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar & Ors.
D.K. Deshmukh
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
