IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 25388 of 1999 BETWEEN: M/s. Saibaba Tobacco Company, Rep. by its Proprietor N.Saibaba Naidu, S/o Chenchuramanaidu, R/o Chintalapamem Village, Janugumalli Mandal. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2nd Floor, Andhra Bank Building, Koti, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager, Main Branch, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 4 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the orders of the 1st Respondent in I.a.NO.2 of 1998 in O.A.No.527 of 1996 by granting a declaration that the proceedings in O.A.No.527/96 on the file of the 1st Respondent be stayed till the disposal of the O.P.No.127/97 on the file of the 3rd Respondent and consequentially direct the first Respondent to forbear from proceeding with trial and disposal of O.A.No.527/96 till O.P.No.127/97 is decided by the 3rd Respondent and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. KOTA SUBBA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has given up vakalath to the party. 2. If vakalath has been given up it is the duty of the petitioner to prosecute the matter either in person or engaging another learned counsel. Therefore, merely because vakalath has been given, the matter cannot be adjourned on that ground, as it is the look out of the petitioner to make alternative arrangements. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.02.2009, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today, when the mater is taken up for hearing the petitioner does not appear. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 10, 2009 DSK