IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 614 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2008 SRIKRISHNA JAIRAM SHETYE ... Applicant Versus CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI THROUGH COMMISSIONER ... Respondent Mr. P. Faldesai, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 30th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This is a review petition. 2. One Srikrishna Jairam Shetye filed a petition through one Kashinath Jairam Shetye, as his power of attorney holder. The power of attorney holder was present in the Court. The matter was argued and when the Court expressed its inclination not to interfere with the action of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to approach the Corporation and this time with an application to grant him handcart licence. 3. The petition was argued and we were taken through documents. Submissions were also made by the learned Advocate on merits. The Corporation's Advocate was also heard extensively after he obtained instructions. 4. Now, this Miscellaneous Application is filed with a request to recall the order, as according to the petitioner, the power of attorney holder was requested to instruct the Advocate to argue and press the petition. However, during the course of arguments, this Court expressed the view that it was inclined to dismiss the petition with heavy costs, that the power of attorney holder took a decision to withdraw the petition. 5. Now, the petitioner seeks recall of the said order and desires that the petitioner be permitted to argue on merits. 6. We strongly disapprove and deprecate this practice. The review application would not, in any event, survive once the main petition is allowed to be withdrawn and does not remain on the file of this Court. That part, this application is preferred through another Advocate and we were told that the power of attorney holder is not available and, therefore, absent. All that transpired in the Court was in the presence of the power of attorney holder and, who, on one occasion appeared without an Advocate. He was personally present in the Court and told us that he has full instructions. He was also referring to the power of attorney which was executed in his favour. 7. In such circumstances, the applicant/original petitioner is bound by the acts of the attorney. He cannot now complain and that too through another Advocate that opportunity to put forward his case on merits was not granted. We dismiss this application with these remarks. 8. The litigants are supposed to be fair to the Court. If they have faith and trust in the system of administration of justice and working of Courts, then, it is expected that they act with responsibility. If the Courts' are set up for rendering justice to the litigants who are approaching the Court on account of this faith and trust, least that is expected from them is that they should be fair and honest to the Court. We say nothing more. Although we are inclined to impose heavy costs on the petitioner, we refrain from doing so only because he is a cancer patient. We take a lenient view on this count and, therefore, dismiss the review application with the above observations. The conduct of the petitioner leaves much to be desired. To say the least, he has not been honest and truthful to the Court. Application disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.