1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION . Contempt Petition No. 110 of 1989. Jasbir Jasbir Jasbir Kaur Anand. Kaur Anand. Kaur Anand. .Petitioner. .Petitioner. .Petitioner. Versus. Versus. Versus. Smt. Parvati Jayaramn & Ors. ..Respondents. Parvati Jayaramn & Ors. ..Respondents. Parvati Jayaramn & Ors. ..Respondents. Manish Mistry i/b M.M. Vashi,Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM:A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 DATED:18.03.2006 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner when the matter is called out today,prays for adjournment on the ground that matter is old one and paper book of this petition are not available with him. This matter is on board since 13/03/2006. Nothing prevented the petitioner to take steps to get copies of the proceeding and to trace out paper book from his office. Obviously, that has not been done. In the circumstances,the request for adjournment is rejected. . Petitioner’s grievance is that inspite of order dated 9.3.1989 she has not been reinstated. In all probability, the said order must have been 2 worked out by now. In any case, in view of my decision reported in 2001 (1) M.L.J. 261, the petitioner will have to take recourse as provided thereunder. The authority will consider the request of the petitioner if made, expeditiously. . This petition is disposed with the above observations as it is not possible to entertain the request for adjournment as petition is pending since 1989. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. [A.M.KHANWILKAR. J] J] J]