Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1289/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1289 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8837 of 2001
=========================================================
HARESHKUMAR
BHAVSINH RATHOD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SADHANA SAGAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HIMANSHU K PATEL ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 23/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present application is made with the signature and upon the affidavit
of learned counsel herself for restoration of original SCA No.8837 of
2001 which was dismissed for default on 29.01.2010. The only ground
stated in the application is that when the matter was called out,
advocate for the applicant was busy in a criminal matter (Coram: Akil
Kureshi, J.) and hence she could not remain present.
2. According
to order dated 29.01.2010, the petition was called out twice during
the course of the day and as a standard practice, the advocate
concerned gets minimum five chances in a day to at least make a
mention or to request for adjournment. According to the standard
practice prevailing in this Court, advocates request for adjournment,
if required, at the opening of the session or at the beginning of the
second session after recess. Then, by the end of the day, learned
counsel get the
chance of mentioning the matter even if it is dismissed and normally
matters are restored, if it is mentioned for that purpose on the same
day. Besides those three chances, the matter appears to have been
called out twice, as stated in the order. Therefore, it is difficult
to believe that learned counsel could not have taken any one of the
five chances, if at all learned counsel were inclined to proceed with
the matter or request for adjournment. Having regard to the record of
the proceedings of the main petition which was pending in court for
nine long years and in view of the fact that hearing was adjourned
for umpteen number of times, often due to absence of learned counsel,
there are reasons to believe that it was the case of active and
conscious non-cooperation by learned counsel, in the matter of
hearing of the petition on merits. Admittedly, the prayer in the main
petition is to direct the respondent to grant to the petitioner
appointment on compassionate ground after setting aside the order
dated 08.08,.2001. The claim of the original petitioner for
compassionate appointment is based upon death of his father on
21.7.1992.
3. In
the above facts and in view of the fact that even the present
application field in February 2002 is moved now for the first time
for any order, it is found to be far from a bona
fide attempt
at having the main petition heard on merits for any meaningful
result. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top