Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn. Court held that if advocate misconduct existed, the petitioner should approach the concerned court for restoration, not the High Court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 402 OF 2013
STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY Versus
RAJARAM P. PHADTE AND 2 ORS.
... Petitioner
... Respondents
Mr. Pai Nikhil Deelip, Addl. Government Advocate for the Petitioner.
Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:3rd October, 2013
P.C.:
The order dated 13/02/2007 dismissing the appeal as withdrawn passed by the Learned Ad- hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji-Goa, is sought to be challenged by way of the above petition.
The said withdrawal was on account of the statement made by the Advocate appearing for the State of Goa. The ground made out in the petition is that the said advocate has misconducted himself. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to approach the Court which passed the order for getting the order set aside and for restoration of the Appeal in question. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, needless to say that the concerned Court would consider it on its own merits and in accordance with law. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
R. M. SAVANT, J.
2
ap/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal as withdrawn due to advocate misconduct could be entertained.
STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
RAJARAM P. PHADTE
R. M. SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
