1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3410 of 2009 (Smt. Rukhminibai w/o Rajendraprasad Gupta v. Shri Vogindram s/o Lekhraj Bhagun through LRs.) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 27 th August, 2009 The respondents had filed Misc. Judicial Case No.96 of 2000 for setting aside ex parte decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 476 of 1989 on 4-9-1995. In that application, allegations were made against Advocate Shri S.R. Khati, who was representing the respondent, i.e. the applicant in Misc. Judicial Case No.96 of 2000, about Advocate Shri Khati’s conduct in Special Civil Suit No.476 of 1989. In fact, that seems to be a major ground on which setting aside of ex parte decree was sought. The respondents, however, did not examine Advocate Shri Khati in support of whatever was stated in the Misc. Judicial Case. The petitioner filed an application at 2 Exhibit 47 stating that Advocate Shri Khati was sincere and senior Advocate and any adverse observation would affect him and that it was, therefore, fair that Advocate Shri Khati may be given an opportunity to state the facts before the Court prior to the Court’s dealing with serious allegations in respect of Advocate Shri Khati behind his back. The petitioner, therefore, sought permission to examine Advocate Shri Khati to clear the matter. This application was opposed by the respondents, i.e. the applicants in the Misc. Judicial Case, on the ground that the arguments were over and it was amusing or rather funny and ridiculous to expect the applicants to examine Advocate Shri Khati. It was also alleged that the application was a classic example of mockery of justice. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As for the anxiety of the applicants to clear the good name of Advocate Shri Khati, suffice it to observe that Advocate Shri Khati would take care of his reputation and the petitioner need not bother. The learned Trial Judge would also undoubtedly see that the petitioner had made an attempt to set the 3 record right by requesting the Court to summon Advocate Shri Khati. The learned Trial Judge would obviously evaluate the evidence tendered in the light of the established principles as also the presumptions which are required to be drawn from the conduct of the parties. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Judge. pdl