16-NMT-57-10.DOC Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 57 OF 2010 IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 306 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 237 OF 2009 Smt. Veena Jaswant Shah. …Plaintiff Versus Shri. Rajendra V. Mehta and another. …Defendants Ms. B.K. Barve, i/b B.K. Barve & Co., for the Petitioner in Misc. Petition (L) No. 306 of 2010 . Ms. Smita Patel, Constituted Attorney for Respondent No. 1 in Misc. Petition (L) No. 306 of 2010. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: June 11, 2014 PC:- 1. There are a very large number of applications, petitions and cross applications between the parties. Of immediate relevance is the order dated 30th September 2013 of the First Court (the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Mr. M. S. Sanklecha, J) in Notice of 1 of 3 16-NMT-57-10.DOC Motion No. 1041 of 2013 in Appeal No. 25 of 2011. In that detailed order, the Division Bench held in paragraph 14 thus: “14. The controversy about uploading of the order is now a closed chapter. The applicant Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta must now move on and either he may argue Appeal No. 25 of 2011 through his Constituted Attorney or he may proceed to oppose the revocation petition i.e. Misc. Petition (Testamentary) No. 54 of 2010 himself or through an advocate. If Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta insists that only his Constituted Attorney should argue to oppose the revocation petition, he will have to await the outcome of Appeal No. 25 of 2011 pending before the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Oka.” 2. Appeal No. 25 of 2011 is pending. My understanding of this order is that in all pending applications, it is the applicant, namely, Mr. Rajendra V. Mehta, who can be heard and who has a right of audience. His constituted attorney Ms. Smita Patel, has not been granted that latitude. Indeed, the First Court’s order indicates that it is only Mr. Metha or a duly appointed Advocate by him who can represent his case, and not Ms. Patel. 3. Whether or not Ms. Patel can be heard at all and granted audience by a Single Judge of this Court is clearly a matter that must await the outcome of Appeal No. 25 of 2011. That appeal is presently pending before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice A. S. Oka. The applicant is at liberty to make an appropriate application to that bench for disposal of that appeal at an early date or for such clarification as may be necessary. Till that is done, and the Appeal Court clarifies that Mr. Mehta is entitled to be 2 of 3 16-NMT-57-10.DOC represented by his constituted attorney, I regret that I cannot grant Ms. Patel an audience in my Court in any of the matters that have been assigned to me. I must clarify that this does not mean that Mr. Mehta or his Advocate will not be heard. Of course, they will and of course Mr. Mehta has right of audience pro se or through an Advocate appointed by him. The issue is only whether Ms. Patel can be heard. That being a matter that lies only before the Appeal Court, it is for the applicant, Mr. Rajendra V. Mehta, to take suitable steps for a clarification or other order in that behalf. 4. As Mr. Mehta is not present in Court today and I am informed that he is not in India at the moment, I am adjourning this matter to 30th June 2014 for directions. 5. It is made clear that if by that time, a suitable clarification or order is not obtained from the Appeal Court or Mr. Mehta is not personally present or present through his Advocate, I will not be able to hear Ms. Patel even on that date. (G. S. PATEL, J.) 3 of 3