1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 408/1994 (Smt. Chandnibai wd/o Kaniramji Jadhav & others VERSUS Smt.Khemanibai wd/o Chaplaji Jadhav & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Bhooshan Mohta, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2010 . The matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants on half a dozen occasions since 16.09.2009. Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the appellants, states that though several communications were issued to the appellants, the counsel for the appellants did not receive any reply from the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks further time of two weeks to issue a notice/communication to the appellants. The request made by the learned counsel for the appellants is extremely unreasonable as on 16.09.2009, the matter was adjourned to 23.09.2009 at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants thereafter on 23.09.2009, the matter was adjourned to 30.09.2009 as a last chance. 2 The counsel for the appellants further adjourned the matter on 30.09.2009, 11.11.2009 and 06.01.2010. The counsel for the appellants could have communicated with his client and even issued notice to his client as desired by him during the intervening period from 16.09.2009 till today. However, this is not done and the matter is adjourned from time to time. The learned counsel for the appellants expresses his inability to argue the matter for want of instructions from the appellants. The second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. JUDGE APTE