6.Mr. Nedumpara now says that he has not been given a full
hearing. I disagree. I have heard Mr. Nedumpara for more than 20
minutes. I have read his application from beginning to end. Every one
of his salient submissions have been considered and dealt with.
Nothing further remains to be said. Mr. Nedumpara wishes to cite a
large number of authorities in, I understand, support of his
proposition of ‘election’, one that I have already rejected on first
principles. No amount of precedent can serve to bolster a non-
existent case, or to dislodge a position in law that is so well settled
that it is actually conceded on affidavit. No advocate has any special
right to argue indefinitely, but only to the extent necessary. “What
harm will be done if I am allowed to argue fully?” Mr. Nedumpara
asks. Given the number of matters on my docket today, and every
day, I believe the answer to that question suggests itself. It is not as if
Mr. Nedumpara has been shut out totally. To the contrary; Mr.
Nedumpara has done more than ample justice to his clients’ cause. I
would not normally have thought it necessary to dictate this last
portion of this order. I have done so only at Mr. Nedumpara’s
insistence and to leave him no scope for any grievance on this score.
