1 nma2993.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2993 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 595 OF 2011 IN REVOCATION PETITION NO. 46 OF 2009 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 60 OF 2004 Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar ....Appellant. Vs. Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S. Mishra i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- This is a Notice of Motion taken out for condonation of delay. Delay is of 311 days. In order to find out whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the Appellant, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on the merits of the Appeal. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 1 October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2 The Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009 was before the Court. It 2 nma2993.11.sxw ssm was on the board of the Court for final hearing. On 13 occasions every time the matter was adjourned at the instance of the advocate. On 1 October 2010 when the matter was before the learned Single Judge, again adjournment was sought. The learned Single Judge refused to adjourn the matter, the advocate refuse to argue the matter and therefore, Revocation Petition was dismissed. The advocate for the Petitioner refused to argue the Revocation Petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Petitioner is merely interested in prolonging the proceedings and dismissed the Revocation Petition. 3 In our opinion the course adopted by the learned Single Judge is perfectly right and that is the only course of action available to the Court in view of the peculiar attitude adopted by the Advocate. No useful purpose therefore will be served by condoning the delay. 4 Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)