1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3046 OF 1998 Smt.Shalini Devdas Rayakar ...Petitioner vs. Vinodkumar K.Shah & Ors. ...Respondents None for the petitioner and the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 This petition was placed on today s board as the Advocate for the petitioner has not removed the office objections. Though a learned Advocate waived service for 1st to 4th respondents, Vakalatnama of the said respondents was not filed. Shockingly the registry has made a totally erroneous noting dated 9th February 2010 on the farad sheet that the learned Advocate who happens to be a very well known senior member of the Bar is no more. I have noticed that similar gross error has been committed in another matter which was placed on board few of days back. Such remark should not have been made without proper verification. The concerned members of staff have tendered apology in writing for making such remarks. The remark be forthwith deleted. 2 The Registrar (Judicial-I) must look into this aspect and will issue necessary direction to all concerned departments that such remarks shall never be written without there being any material on record to suggest that the concerned Advocate is no more. Though the apology tendered by the members of the staff deserves 2 to be accepted, the Registrar Judicial-I will have to issue general instructions to the members of staff to the effect that such remarks shall not be made in casual manner. It is necessary to ensure that such shocking mistake should not be repeated. The apology tendered by the members of the staff is accepted. 3 Time of six weeks is granted to take steps for effecting service of notice to respondent no.5. If appropriate steps are not taken within stipulated time, the petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution as against the said respondent without further reference to the Court. Issue fresh notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 4. JUDGE