When the application is called out and taken up for hearing, Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, is not present. On earlier occasion also, when the application was taken out for hearing, Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, did not remain present. Hence, while recording his absence, order dated 21.3.2012 was passed.
2. In response to the said order, Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the opponents, has remained present.
3. In view of the consistent absence of learned advocate for the applicant, present application is disposed of for non-prosecution and also for the reason that the applicant has not placed on record relevant material to accept her request and grant the relief as prayed for.
4. Another copy of the writ petition which the applicant wants to reconstruct is not placed on record. Therefore, without examining the material, it is not possible for the Court to pass any order. On 13.1.2012 the Court had passed belowmentioned order in present application:-
"The Registry to verify and place on record the original papers of Special Civil Application No.11848 of 2004 along with report latest by 06.02.2012."
Therefore, the registry is directed to take necessary and appropriate actions to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 13.1.2012.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, present application stands disposed of.
It is further clarified that as and when any application connected with Special Civil Application No.11848 of 2004 is placed before the Court, the cause list may reflect name of Mr. Praful J. Bhatt and Ms. Paurami B. Sheth as learned advocates for the opponents.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top