1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 665/1999 (Ambadas Bhikaji Dhahake VERSUS The Additional Collector, Amravati & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. P. Yerlekar h/f Shri V.M. Deshpande, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. Learned counsel Shri Bute appears on behalf of the petitioner in a part heard matter, which is argued at length by Shri R.R. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner on at least three occasions. The matter was fully heard by the Court and the matter was adjourned merely because the Court wanted to peruse the Record & Proceedings before rendering a decision in the writ petition. Hence, in this background, permission cannot be granted to Advocate Shri Bute for appearing on behalf of the petitioner, specially when Shri R.R. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has concluded his arguments on behalf of the petitioner. 2 The oral request made by learned counsel Shri Bute to make the submissions on behalf of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE APTE