Bombay High CourtCAW/2213/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Tukaram Shikshan Sanstha, Gadchiroli Through Its Secretary, Pundlik Ramchandraji Aakre And 2 Others v. Naresh Gangaram Nakhare And Anothers

2017-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 caw2213.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.W. NO.2213/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5083/2014 Tukaram Shikshan Sanstha and others ..Vs..

Naresh Gangaram Navkhare and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for the petitioners. Shri P.N. Shende, Adv. for respondent No.1.

Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATE : 9.2.2017.

The respondent No.1 / employee prays that the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners on 16th November, 2015 be vacated.

The prayer for vacating the interim order granted on 16th November, 2015 is made by application which is filed on 23rd September, 2016. There is no explanation for not filing the application immediately. The order passed on 16th November, 2015 records that the Advocate representing the respondent No.1 appeared in the morning session, the matter was kept back and in the afternoon session none appeared for the respondent No.1. There is no explanation why there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.1 when his Advocate was aware that the matter was to be taken

2 caw2213.16 up for hearing. In view of the above, I am not inclined to consider the prayer made in the application. The civil application is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.