Learned counsel Mr. Panesar appearing for the petitioner, had mentioned at the beginning of the court hours for an adjournment on the vague ground of having some difficulty. That request was rejected and thereafter, the matter has been called out for hearing more than once. Learned counsel Mr. JM Patel appearing for the respondent, has made a serious grievance that by order dated 15.11.2006, the petition was admitted and ex parte ad interim relief was granted, after which, no hearing has taken place for confirmation or vacation of the ad interim relief. Instead, at one stage the petition was dismissed for default on 10.2.2011. Thereafter, the hearing of the petition on merits is practically avoided on one or the other ground, even as a decree is obtained by the respondent and even a review application preferred therefrom is rejected, according to the submission. It was, on that basis submitted that pendency of the petition and the continuance of the ad interim relief was by way of an abuse of the process of court. Learned counsel Mr. Patel also submitted that his attempt at getting the ad interim relief vacated by filing Civil Application No.5518 of 2007 also did not succeed, as the order dated 18.9.2007 made therein only directed listing of the main petition for final disposal on 3rd October, 2007. Thereafter, while restoring the main petition, the court had directed by order dated 28.2.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.608 of 2011 that: "the main petition is fixed for final hearing on 10th March, 2011. It is made clear that if on the said date the learned advocate for the applicant will not remain present in the first round, the matter will be dismissed in the very first round and the same will not be restored again."
2. In the above facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that the petitioner is bent upon taking disadvantage of the ex parte ad interim relief granted in its favour and learned advocate for the petitioner is remaining present or absent with a calculated strategy to avoid any hearing on merits even after pendency of the petition for six years. Therefore, the petition is dismissed for default with cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to respondent No.1 within a period of one month from today. Rule is discharged and ad interim relief is vacated.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) shekhar* Top