1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 7019 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 11047 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No.592 of 2008 [pending] [Triratha Krida & Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Smt. Shobha Bajirao Damodar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. DCR Mishra, Adv., for the applicant- original respondent no.1. Mr. Shirsat, Adv., for the original petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th October,2008. 1. Heard both learned Advocates. 2. This is an application by respondent no.1 for condonation of 42 days' delay in filing Misc. Civil Application St. No. 11047 of 2008. 3. Application is opposed on the ground that though some of the reasons are factual, the application for condonation of delay as well review are not bona fide. 4. According to learned Adv. Mr. Shirsat, the applicant was litigating before this Court 2 by filing various Civil Applications in Writ Petition No. 592 of 2008, and on that ground, he urges that the application for condonation of delay be rejected. 5. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing application for review can be condoned on the condition that the applicant shall pay to the Writ Petitioner costs in a sum of Rs.2000-00 [rupees two thousand only] towards condonation, which would soften the prejudice to the Writ Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 7019 of 2008 is allowed on costs as indicated in para no.5 above. The amount of costs be paid within six weeks. Judge |Hedau| 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 11047 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No.592 of 2008 [pending] [Triratha Krida & Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Smt. Shobha Bajirao Damodar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. DCR Mishra, Adv., for the applicant- original respondent no.1. Mr. Shirsat, Adv., for the original petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th October,2008. 1. By this application, original respondent no.1 is seeking review of Order passed by this Court on 6th May, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 592 of 2008. 2. Heard. 3. The grounds for review, as averred in 4 the application, are revolving around a ground that there are groups in the Management and Change Report proceedings are pending, and alleged President – Shri Shyamrao Kisan Chavan has no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. 4. It is also urged that the request made by alleged President seeking permission to suspend the respondent no.1 – present applicant is also rejected, disputing his status as a legally acting President. 5. It is also urged that the interim relief should not have been granted. 6. Copy of alleged order of refusal of permission for suspension was not placed on record. 7. The Farad Orders in Writ Petition No. 592 of 2008 indicate that on 2nd April, 2008, the petition was ready for hearing in view of amendment, additional paper-book etc. The Writ Petition was then ordered to be listed on 4th April, 2008. 8. It seems that the petition was listed on 7th April, 2008, and at the request of petitioner's Advocate, it was adjourned once. 5 9. At the request of present applicant's Advocate, hearing was adjourned on four occasions without any reply being filed. According to learned Adv. Mr. Shirsat for the writ petitioner, the adjournments were sought after substantial hearing had occurred. 10. After hearing oral submissions of the petitioner and the respondents, this Court had passed order dated 6th May, 2008 and granted Rule and interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (ii). Learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Ghare also waived service for respondent no.1. 11. It is seen that thereafter, i.e., after interim order was passed, the present applicant has changed Advocate, filed reply on 24th June, 2008 and made efforts to bring on record grounds, such as existence of disputes in the Management. It is also an admitted fact that attempts were made to seek vacation of interim order, however, the Court gave to the respondent no.1 liberty to withdraw the application for vacation of stay and move for that purpose appropriately. 12. It is in the aforesaid background that the present application for review is filed. 13. In the present application, amongst other grounds as to dispute inter se the Management, want of authority with the person 6 who represents the Society as a President is urged to be a crucial ground. 14. It is clear that this Court was led by the facts as found in the petition and annexures thereto. These facts so emerging had gone unchallenged in spite of four adjournments. 15. It is not the case of respondent no.1 – present applicant that the oral or other request for further adjournment and further time to file reply was made, but was declined by the Court. 16. Any cause, much less, a reasonable cause is shown as to why reply to the Writ Petition was not filed. 17. It cannot be speculated as to what would have been the decision, had the material been brought on record by the present applicant by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply well within time before this Court in the Writ Petition. In these circumstances, the applicant-respondent no.1 cannot blame anyone, except herself, for failing to file reply. 18. Moreover, the fact that changing the Advocate and then filing an application for review is definitely liable to be deprecated. Applicant's learned Advocate earlier representing the applicant too is not available who could be a right person to respond to what 7 this Court has found and has noted in paras 9 and 15 foregoing. 19. This Court has expressed gross dissatisfaction and called upon learned Advocate for applicant to show as to why stern action by saddling heavy costs on the applicant for resorting to applying for review on changing Advocate when Adv. Mr. Ghare's name still continues on record in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in _______________________________ should not be taken. 20. Learned Adv. Mr. DCR Mishra states that this being first occasion of the type, the Court may not take a serious view of the matter. Learned Advocate has no remorse for the conduct of the client who has changed Advocate and filed a Review Application, which he cannot have. Learned Advocate seems to have fallen prey to the unscrupulous tendency of the litigant. This Court does not intend to penalise learned Advocate in any manner, but the litigant cannot go unchastised. 21. This tendency needs to be deprecated as is done by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well by this Court, as such instances are seen recurring. 22. Keeping in line with what this Court has done in the cases [cited supra], the present 8 applicant deserves to be saddled with a cost of Rs.5000/- [rupees five thousand only], which be paid to the Writ Petitioner. 23. Review Application, therefore, does not call for interference, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|