It appears that on many occasions, when the matter was called out, learned counsel for the petitioners has not remained present and as could be seen from the docket-sheet, at least more than five times, the Court had to adjourn the matter by recording that none appeared for the petitioner. Lastly, when the matter had appeared on board on 10.02.2012, this Court had recorded that name of Mr.P. C. Master, learned counsel for the petitioners was wrongly shown. However, another advocate who is appearing for the petitioners, had also not remained present and, therefore, this Court was required to adjourn the matter again on 17.02.2012. It appears that thereafter, the matter could not be taken up and it was adjourned twice and today, the matter appears on board. Today also, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner has not remained present. This Court is, therefore, left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed for default . Rule is discharged.
[ C. L. SONI, J. ] vijay Top