1. When the petition was called out and taken up for hearing in first call / first sitting learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. Any request for passover or adjournment was also not made. However instead of dismissing the petition for non-prosecution, passover was granted.
2. Even in second call / second setting when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and petitioner are not present. Any request for passover or adjournment is also not made. The hearing of the petition is ignored.
3. On 24.7.2012 also the petitioner and the learned advocate for the petitioner had not remained present and the petition HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 07 23:15:56 IST 2017 SCA/14732/2011 2 ORDER had to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently vide order dated 5.9.2012, in Misc. Civil Application (for restoration) No.2412 of 2012 the said order dated 24.7.2012 was recalled and the petition being Special Civil application No.14732 of 2011 was directed to be restored to its original file.
4. Now when the petition is again listed for hearing after restoration, learned advocate for the petitioner has remained absent in two calls.
5. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for respondent No.4 is present. He has submitted that two concurrent orders are passed in favour of the respondent and without any locus, the petitioner, in his capacity as complainant, is prosecuting present petition against the said concurrent orders passed in favour of the respondent.
6. In view of the absence of the petitioner and learned advocate for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 07 23:15:56 IST 2017