1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1386 OF 2001 (Sulochanabai w/o Badrinarayan Pendabhaje, Deceased through her L.Rs. 1A) Sau.Pushpabai Dhondiram Saykar and others vs. Laxman s/o Kashinath Ingale, died,L.Rs. 1A) Sau.Nalini Subhash Kachure and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. B.P.Bodkhe, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. R.R.Mantri, Adv., for respondent no.8. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25/11/2010 1. Rule was issued on 14th August, 2002. 2. Heard. Dismissal of suit by order dt.5th Sept.,2000, for non prosecution is questioned. Having read the order under challenge, I find that the learned Judge was gracious to accommodate the plaintiff/petitioner on number of occasions but the concession was betrayed and the plaintiff/petitioner did not even comply his obligation to remain 2 present inspite of such assurance given on earlier dates. The learned Judge even passed order below Exh.1, directed the plaintiff to lead evidence at 11.30 sharp on Tuesday and he waited for the plaintiff upto 12 noon. However, nobody turned up and, thereafter, he dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. The learned Judge found that there was scant regard for the Court by the plaintiff and, particularly, the orders of the Court. The laxity shown by the plaintiff in attending the matter and dismissal of the suit by the learned Judge, does not require any interference as the order does not demonstrate any illegality, carving the sweep indicated in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/1386-01cra