1. This matter has come up before this court and adjourned time and again. Earlier on 15.03.2012, this Court passed the following order:
"Report of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record. At the request of Mr. Niral Mehta, ld. Advocate, S.O to 22/3/2012. "
2. Thereafter on 22.03.2012, matter was adjourned to 28.03.2012 in view of sick note of Mr. Mishra. On 28.03.2012, the matter was again adjourned to 10.04.2012 at the request of Mr. Mehta. Thereafter on 10.04.2012, the following order was passed:
"Respondents Nos. 5 & 6 to file affidavit narrating steps taken by them pursuant to seizure of the documents. S.O to 25/04/2012."
3. On 25.04.2012, Mr. Mehta had filed sick note and therefore the matter was adjourned to today. Today when the matter was called out in the first round, the court expected that the affidavit with regard to steps taken by the respondents no. 5 & 6 shall be placed on record. However, Mr. Mehta sought time in two rounds saying that affidavit is not ready though two weeks' time was granted. Therefore the matter was kept post recess.
4. When the matter was called out post recess, Mr. Mehta further requested for time to complete certain formalities. This court has seriously viewed such practice as this seems to be nothing but negligence of the order of the Court on the part of the respondents no. 5 & 6. Simply admitting the matter shall not be in the interest of either parties and therefore this Court is of the opinion that time shall be granted to the respondents no. 5 & 6 on paying appropriate costs.
5. Accordingly, matter is adjourned to 27.04.2012 on condition cost of Rs. 250/- shall be deposited by the respondents no. 5 & 6 before the legal aid authority.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top