Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1370/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 1370 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11592 of 2009
======================================
TELECOM
DISTRICT MANAGER AND OTHERS
Versus
PARVATIBEN
BHULANPRASAD AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR YC CONTRACTOR for
Applicants.
None for
Opponents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 15/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. After
arguing at some length on the maintainability of the original Special
Civil Application as well as present Misc. Civil Application, learned
counsel went into tamper tantrums and loudly submitted that he does
not propose to withdraw the application nor propose to obtain any
order on merits; but he only wanted the case to be transferred to
another Court. Earlier to that he submitted that a review petition
was maintainable when there was mistake apparent on the face of
record and the Court has to have concern for justice. He further
submitted that if learned counsel were to find out judgments in
favour of his client after hearing was over and a judicial decision
was rendered then review was required to be entertained and point of
view of learned counsel was required to be appreciated. He also
submitted that ignorance of a counsel at a particular time would be
sufficient cause for reviewing a judicial order in order to ensure
that parties do not suffer on account of ignorance of their counsel.
Learned counsel was then invited to cite any judgment or precedent in
support of his submissions and again he repeatedly argued that he had
twelve judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court in his
favour and he had prepared detailed notes thereof. When he was
requested to cite the judgment, learned counsel relied upon
Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna
Swami v. Union of India and others
[AIR 1993 SC 1407].
When learned counsel was requested to point out the observations and
read them to support his submissions, he got excited and submitted
that he does not have a copy of the judgment but he was arguing on
the basis of his notes, and if any observations were to be read from
any judgment, he would require further time and that a counsel was
entitled to grant of time on such counts. He also submitted that in
his long career as a counsel he has always enjoyed such facility and
the Court ought not to refuse such indulgence.
2. Having
gone through the previous order dated 30th
April 2010, which is sought to be reviewed, and in view of further
loss of public time of the Court, without any worthwhile submission
being made or substantiated, present proceeding also appears to be an
extension of abuse of process of the Court. Even otherwise learned
counsel has openly and in clear terms refused to argue on merits with
an unseemly attitude not befitting an advocate of the standing of
decades of legal practice. Under the circumstances, we have no
alternative but to dismiss the application with cost quantified at
Rs.3,000/-, over and above the cost already imposed by previous order
dated 30th
April 2010 in Special Civil Application No.11592 of 2009. The
applicants are permitted to deposit total amount of Rs.8,000/- by way
of cost to State Legal Services Authority at Ahmedabad latest by 21st
June 2010. In case the amount, as aforesaid, is not paid by that
time and evidence thereof is not produced in the registry of the High
Court, the orders of this Court shall be placed before the Bench
taking up Contempt of Court matters for appropriate further
proceedings.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
*malek
Top