(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) In spite of earlier order dated 20.08.2010 recording absence of advocate for the petitioner and considerable time after restoration of the matter, learned counsel Mr.Rajan J.Patel, appearing with learned advocate Mr.Bharat R.Pandya, submitted that he was not ready to argue. He initially stated that he was not having any papers. Therefore he was allowed time and even allowed to read papers of the Court. Even after that, at the opening of the second session, he insisted that he must be granted adjournment at the admission stage only because he was not prepared to argue. Under the circumstances, it is not proper to deal with the contentions contained in the petition on merits, if any, and it is necessary to dismiss the petition for default in presence of learned advocate who is obviously neither willing to argue or assist the court nor having any justification for seeking adjournment. The practice of claiming adjournment as a matter of right, and that too at the admission stage, can only be deprecated as it involves avoidable waste of public time of the Court and appears to be a matter of convenience, as though matters are listed on the cause-list only for the Court to hold hearing, if and when learned counsel is inclined to argue. It needs to be noted that when the petition was earlier dismissed for default on 20.08.2010 and petitioner had filed M.C.A.No.1207 of 2012, notice of Rule was required to be issued therein and a counsel for the respondent had appeared. Then the application for restoration was allowed in presence of and at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is now dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.1,000/- which shall be paid to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority at Ahmedabad within a period of one week.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/-
( G.B.Shah, J.) (KMG Thilake) Top