1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2213 OF 1999 (Bhumiputra Shikshan Sanstha and another vs. Arzoo Shankarrao Patel and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.S. Killor, Advocate for the respondent no.1. ---------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 21, 2011 By the above application, the applicants, i.e. original respondent nos. 1 and 2, seek setting aside of the judgment and order dated 11/8/2010 passed in the above writ petition. By the said judgment and order, though reinstatement was denied to the original petitioner, the Management was directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to him within three months from the communication. 2 The setting aside of the said judgment and order is sought by the applicants on the ground that Counsel for the applicant no.1 Management - one Shri P.V. Kaslikar expired sometime in the year 2008 and only after the Management approached his son that papers in the above writ petition could be retrieved by the Management. It is the further case of the Management that notice on the death of its Advocate was served only on the Principal, i.e. respondent no.2 in the petition, but was not served upon the respondent no.1 Management. In my view, the reasons mentioned for seeking setting aside of the judgment and order do not commend acceptance. The applicant Management has nowhere stated as to when it became aware of death of its Counsel Shri P.V. Kaslikar and why no steps were taken for appointing another Counsel in place of Shri P.V. Kaslikar. Another fact, which is required to be taken into consideration, is that the Principal was noticed by this Court after the death of Shri P.V. Kaslikar intimating the date of final hearing of the above writ petition. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the 3 case of the applicants that they became aware of the judgment passed only after they approached the son of their Advocate. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the applicants in the above application. The same is accordingly rejected. JUDGE khj