← Library
Bombay High CourtAPPR/106/2019allowed

Namdeo S/O Narayan Pagote And Another v. The Union Of India Through Rpf Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Itwari Nagpur

2019-04-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Murlidhar Ganpatrao Giratkar2 pages

revn220.17 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.220/2017 Namdeo s/o Narayan Pagote and anr ..vs..

The Union of India, thr. RPF Inspector, Rly. Protection Force, Itwari, Nagpur ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Shri R.R.Vyas, Counsel for the applicants.

Shri Nitin Lambat, Counsel for the non-applicant.

CORAM

: M.G.GIRATKAR, J.

DATED : APRIL 5, 2019.

Criminal Application (APPR) No.106/2019 1.

Heard.

2.

Learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the applicants points out Rule 2 of Chapter XXXII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The said Rule is reproduced as under:

"2. One Advocate for each party usually heard on Appellate Side.- On the Appellate Side one Advocate will be heard on behalf of each one of the parties or set of parties appearing separately, but it will be open to the Court, on application, to allow two Advocates to be heard on behalf of any one of them.

This rule does not apply to applications or miscellaneous matters, in which one .....2/-

revn220.17 19 Advocate only will be heard on behalf of each one of the parties."

3.

As per the above cited Rule, the Court can allow two Advocates on behalf of any one of them.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused filed common revision and two Advocates are representing them. Both Advocates can argue the matter one by one.

5.

Hence, the criminal application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-