AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 197 wordsRajendra Badamikar, J
The learned counsel for the petitioner called out. Absent.
It is noticed that by order dated 08.04.2021, a preemptive order is passed noticing regular absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner after
admission of the matter and getting further proceedings stayed. Hence, the Court recording regular absence on the part of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, has finally adjourned the matter on 12.04.2021. On that day also, there was no representation and even on that day i.e., on 12.04.2021, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has been contacted over telephone and he has simply claimed that he is out of station and the matter was adjourned
on 17.04.2021. Again on 17.04.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. In spite of the fact that the Registry is making all endeavors to
contact the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Under such circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner
is not interested in prosecuting the matter in spite of number of preemptive orders. Hence, without any alternative, this Court is required to dismiss the
petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.