1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1172 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4403 of 1991 M.C.Dixit ...Applicant v/s. P.R.Patankar (since deceased) by Mrs. Shalini P. Patankar & ors. ...Respondents Applicant present in person. Smt. Sujata Mogre, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- July 07, 2009. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This application is moved on the assertion that on the given day, the applicant as well as his Advocate was unaware that the matter was to proceed for final hearing on 16/7/2008. This ground is unacceptable. In as much as, the Writ Petition was placed for final hearing and included in the final hearing list much earlier to 16th July, 2008. To reassure this position I called upon the office to produce the weekly board for the relevant week as well as the previous week. It was noticed that during the relevant week (week commencing from 14th July, 2 2008), matter was shown at Sr. No. 207 (i.e. at sr. no. 7). It eventually reached for hearing only on Wednesday, the 16th July, 2008. In the previous week (commencing from 7th July, 2008 till 11th July, 2008) it was shown at sr. no. 219 (i.e. at sr. no. 19) of the weekly list. In other words, the matter was on Board for sufficiently long time to go unnoticed. It is not the case of the applicant that the applicant as well as his Advocate was unaware about the listing of the matter even in the previous weeks. Rather, the pleadings and the affidavits are advisedly silent about that relevant fact. Significantly, the matters are placed in the weekly list as per chronology (oldest matter first in the given category). To get over this position, Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.P.Srivastava v/s. R.K. Raizada & ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1221. In Paragraph 7 of the said decision, the Court has held that “sufficient cause for non-appearance” refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding exparte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. 3. The argument of the applicant founded on the above exposition clearly overlooks that it is not a case where the matter was suddenly listed for the first time or after a gap on the Board, on 16th July, 2008. The matter, as aforesaid, was always on the weekly board issued on week to week basis for quite some time. The same board is continued from week to week basis progressively as per the practice of this Court. No separate daily final hearing board is issued. Thus understood, the explanation offered by the applicant does not commend to me. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.K.Prasad v/s. P. Arumugam reported in AIR 2001 SC 2497 in particular the exposition in Paragraph 9 thereof. That decision is of no avail to the facts of the present case. 3 4. According to the Respondents-original writ Petitioner, the decree has already been executed. Besides, the Petitioner waited for all this period (for almost one year) and has moved the present application only in May 2009. Notably, the Applicant is a practising Advocate and not an ordinary litigant who can be excused of not being familiar with the Court practice. It is not the case of the Applicant that neither he nor his Advocate was aware of the board and case status displayed on the High Court Official Website and also such information available from the High Court Facilitation Centre. It would be legitimate to infer that the only reason must be to facilitate protracting the possibility of execution of eviction decree likely to be passed in relation to cause of action of ground of arrears of rent dating back to year 1973. It is too easy to feign ignorance and get away with the explanation that it was the mistake of the clerk of the Advocate on record. 5. In the fact situation of the present case, in my opinion and for the reasons already recorded, no indulgence can be shown to the applicant. 6. In the circumstances, this Application is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)