: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.123 OF 2007 NO.123 OF 2007 NO.123 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.3125 OF 2006 NO.3125 OF 2006 NO.3125 OF 2006 Prakash R.Shidore .. Applicant. Versus Divisional Joint Registrar, C.S.Pune Division, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.G.Karandikar i/b.Mr.G.S.Godbole for applicant. Mr.Arun Palekar i/b.Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 24th January, 2008. : 24th January, 2008. : 24th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This review petition is filed against an order dated 14th September, 2006. 2. Before going into the merits of the matter, it is required to be placed on record that on 2nd May, 2006, circulation was obtained by the petitioner based on urgency. It was granted. Petition, on circulation appeared on Board on 3rd May, 2006. This day, Counsel appearing for the applicant remained absent. Consequently, instead of dismissing the petition, the Court on its own thought it fit to adjourn the matter : 2 : beyond vacation. Accordingly, absence of the advocate for petitioner was ignored by the Court and the petition was adjourned beyond vacation. 3. After vacation, matter appeared on Board on 6th July, 2006. Again, nobody appeared for the petitioner. Again, absence of the advocate for the petitioner was ignored. Adjournment was granted by the Court on its own. This petition was adjourned from time to time without any progress. 4. On 14th September, 2006, when matter appeared on Board, nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner / present applicant. 5. In the above circumstances, having noticed continuous absence of the Advocate appearing for the petitioner / applicant, this Court, after having gone through the petition, disposed off the petition on merits, since dismissal in default would not have served the ends of justice. It results in restoration proceedings. Looking to the continuous absence of the Advocate, further adjournments, would have added one more case to the dockets pending in this Court. Deliberate absence results in dismissal in default which gives rise to motion for : 3 : restoration, which sometime results in forum shopping. 6. Continuous absence of Advocate appearing for the applicant on more than 4 to 5 occasions in the substantive writ petition has not been explained. In this view of the matter, for want of unexplained absence of Advocate, absence of opportunity to make submissions cannot be a ground for review. 7. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the applicant was heard on merits. He took me through the documents on record and tried to refer to some of the documents, which are not on record, which this Court has refused to look into. 8. Having considered the matter once again, no case is made out to entertain this review petition looking to the limited scope of the review jurisdiction of this Court. 9. In the result, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA, J.) DAGA, J.) DAGA, J.)