pursue the Writ Petition at all. He instead made various applications for adjournments being Exhibit Nos.53, 54, 55, 56, 57 & 59. The learned Judge in the impugned order has observed the abuse by Petitioner husband of applying for adjournments upon the ground that some order was challenged. I called upon Petitioner's advocate to state which was that Petition. It was Petition No.4234 of 2012. Hence I called for the papers and proceedings. I find that the most innocuous order of 3rd April, 2012 taking on record one vakalatnama as Exh. 51 and adjourning the Petition to 30th April, 2012 for day to day hearing as part heard has come to be challenged. This petition remained on board without anything being done until 13th July, 2012 when it came up for admission and when the Petitioner as well as his advocate remained absent. Notice was issued upon Respondent. The Petitioner was directed to serve the Respondent personally also by any mode of service and Hamdast was allowed. Bhatta also has not paid in the Petition and affidavit of service has not been filed despite such order. That Petition has been adjourned thereafter from time to time before this Court for paucity of time and before the Registrar awaiting service. However, it is seen that even as late as on 4th October, 2012. Bhatta was not paid and time for payment of Bhatta was granted. The Petition came to be adjourned from time to time till 14th December, 2012. Mr. Prashant Parsurampuria, Advocate appeared for the Petitioner on 7th January, 2013. The Petition has yet not been heard and the Petitioner's advocate did not even inform the court that such Petition was filed.
