1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- WRIT RESTORATION No. 17 of 2009 MANKI V/S CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.),VALLABHNAGAR & ORS Mr. DK GODARA, Mr. PAPPU SANGHVA for Mr. ANAND PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 28.1.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal was filed way back on 6.8.2007, and on 8.8.2007. Notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents no. 2 to 6, and on 22.8.2007 it was recorded that all the notices of the respondents have been served since then the matter was simply being adjourned for one reason or the other. Every time the adjournment was being asked as if the learned counsel has a right to assume that adjournment would be granted, and indulgence granted in adjourning the matter was being taken otherwise by the learned counsel. When on 17.7.2008 again adjournment was sought it was clearly given out to the learned counsel that he should stop asking for adjournments, and the last adjournment was given when the matter came up on 6.8.2008, on that occasion adjournment was sought, and it was noticed 2 in the order-sheet that since the matter is already very old, inasmuch as, right from August, 2007 and end of July 2008 the matter is simply being adjourned, and it was clarified that no further adjournment will be granted. It is in this sequence that on 11.8.2008 the learned counsel simply asked to adjourn, and when that was declined pretext were projected which were not accepted, and the learned counsel gave out that he does not want to argue the matter, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. In these circumstances we do not find the averments made in the application to be correct. The request was never misconstrued by the Court, and whatever transpired in the Court has been recorded in the order-sheet. It may also by the way be observed that the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the learned trial court dt. 12.4.2007 whereby the petition filed by the present petitioner appellant seeking to challenge the election held on 31.1.2005 was dismissed. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the learned trial court has decided issue no. 3 against the petitioner, and it was found that the petitioner neither produced, nor pleaded before adjudicating court about the notification dt. 1.11.1996, and the subsequent entries made in the record. It was also found that the learned trial court on the basis of available evidence found the returned candidate to be member of schedule tribe. It was appeal 3 against this order which was simply desired to be kept hanging fire indefinitely. Thus, considering from any stand point, we do not find any ground to accept the present application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/