IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 2010 SHRI. GURUDAS VISHNU GAONKAR ... Petitioner Versus SMT. MADHAVI RANJIT DESSAI @ KATKAR AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 1st July, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in RCS No.67/98/A. In this Writ Petition he has challenged the order dated 30/01/2010, by which the learned Civil Judge Senior Division has set aside the ex-parte order dated 14/02/2008 and has allowed the sole defendant to contest the proceedings. 3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the application filed by the defendant, particularly to the averments at page 76 and 77 to show that the defendant was in touch with the advocate Shri Bandodkar and Shri Pradeep Verenkar, who was following the matter of the suit. Learned Counsel has submitted that no affidavits of the said Verenkar or for that matter advocate Bandodkar were filed in support of the case. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Muktinath Das V/s. Smt. Brinda Das (AIR 1990 Gauhati 10) and has submitted that there was no reason why affidavit filed by the defendant was to be believed. 4. On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the defendant has submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed on the application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has considered the case set out by the defendant and has allowed her to contest the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the case of B.K. Muniraju V/s. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2008 (4) SCC 451) and has submitted that in certiorari jurisdiction, the Court ought not to interfere with an order, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the proceedings and grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 5. The main reason why the proceedings went ex-parte against the defendant is that advocate Shri Bandodkar who was appearing for her did not attend the proceedings, but it was not denied before the learned trial Court as well as before this Court that the said advocate Shri Bandodkar was unwell for a very long time and was not attending the Courts. This aspect of the case has been rightly considered by the learned trial Court with reference to the cited cases including the case of Gaurang V. Merchant & Ors. V/s. Madhliso & Co.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2004 Vol.106 (2) Bom.L.R.153). 6. The learned trial Court in fact has observed that the concerned advocate himself was the victim of ill health which resulted in his losing track of the matter. It is also observed, and in my view rightly, that once a party engages a competent advocate to represent the said party in a Court of law, the said party can assume that the said advocate would be duly representing the said party's interest and would not absent himself, when the case is fixed for hearing and if he desires to withdraw from the case, he shall give intimation of his desire to do so to the party engaging him, so that the party can make alternate arrangement for being represented in the matter. The learned trial Court also appears to have been taken note of the fact that the defendant herself was a lady of 76 years. 7. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, this is not a fit case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH