1 nma2994.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2994 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 594 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 151 OF 2010 IN REVOCATION PETITION NO. 46 OF 2009 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 60 OF 2004 Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar ....Appellant. Vs. Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S. Mishra i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- This is a Notice of Motion taken out for condonation of delay. Delay is of 225 days. In order to find out whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the Appellant, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on the merits of the Appeal. This Appeal 2 nma2994.11.sxw ssm is directed against the order dated 20 December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2 The Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009 was before the Court. It was on the board of the Court for final hearing. On 13 occasions every time the matter was adjourned at the instance of the advocate. On 1 October 2010 when the matter was before the learned Single Judge, again adjournment was sought. The learned Single Judge refused to adjourn the matter, the advocate refused to argue the matter and therefore, Revocation Petition was dismissed. Notice of Motion No. 151 of 2010 was taken out for restoration of the Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009. It is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20 December 2010 that she offered to restore the Revocation Petition provided both the advocates were willing to argue the Revocation Petition on the same day. The advocate for the Petitioner refused to argue the Revocation Petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Petitioner is merely interested in prolonging the proceedings and refused to restore the Revocation Petition. 3 In our opinion the course adopted by the learned Single Judge is 3 nma2994.11.sxw ssm perfectly right and that is the only course of action available to the Court in view of the peculiar attitude adopted by the Advocate. No useful purpose therefore will be served by condoning the delay. 4 Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)