1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.284 of 2005 Himanshu K.Maniar ..Petitioner vs. Uttam Vasudeo Chavan ..Respondent Ms.Shobana Gopal for petitioner. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 22 nd September, 2009 P.C. 1 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in the year 2005. In the order of this Court dated 4 th May 2009 it is rcorded that the Advocate for the petitioner had informed the Court that she has not received any instructions from the petitioner and she may consider withdrawing her appearance. 2 Thereafter the petitioner gave instructions to his Advocate pursuant to which on 8 th June, 2009, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition having 2 realised that there is a clerical error in the prayer clause. Time was granted to carry out the amendments within a period of one week failing which the petition was to stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to Court. The petitioner was also directed to serve a copy of the amended petition to the opposite party after carrying out the amendments on or before 23 rd June, 2009. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner thereafter again failed to contact his Advocate and come forward for carrying out the amendments because of which the petition stood dismissed. 3 Thereafter the petitioner contacted his Advocate and an application was moved seeking restoration of the petition. Thereupon this Court ordered setting aside of the order of dismissal of the writ petition and granted time to the petitioner to carry out the amendments within a period of two 3 weeks from 22 nd July 2009. Since the petitioner had failed to serve the Notice of Motion on the respondent this Court by its order dated 22 nd July 2009 directed the petitioner to publish an advertisement that the writ petition dismissed earlier had been restored by this Court. The petitioner once again failed to contact his Advocate and to carry out the amendments and also failed to publish the advertisement as ordered by this Court. 4 Thereafter when the petition reached hearing on 2 nd September, 2009 time was sought by the Advocate for the petitioner to make a last attempt to contact the petitioner and inform him that the order dated 22 nd July 2009 passed by this Court requires to be complied with. 5 On 9 th September, 2009 the learned Advocate informed this Court that the petitioner is not coming forward to give 4 instructions and has also changed his residential address. This Court, therefore, directed the Court office to issue notice to the petitioner inter alia informing him that the petition will appear before this Court on 22 nd September, 2009. In spite of receiving the Court notice on 17 th September, 2009 the petitioner has not come forward to attend to his matter. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has informed her that he is having a slip disc problem and that his son will be attending the Court on 22 nd September 2009 and give instructions in the matter. However, his son has not come to Court. The learned Advocate, therefore, seeks to withdraw her appearance on the ground that the petitioner is avoiding to come forward and give her necessary instructions in the writ petition since May 2009. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is, therefore, 5 allowed to withdraw her appearance for the petitioner and the petition is dismissed in default. 6 However, the learned Advocate for the petitioner shall once again write a letter to the petitioner informing him that the petition has been dismissed and shall also forward a copy of this order to the petitioner. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)