HANAMAWWA Vs. YAMANAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were appellants in the regular appeal before the first appellate Court and the other respondents in the present appeal were respondents in the said proceedings. Hence, notice to them may be dispensed with, since he submits that the appeal can be considered on very short point as regards whether the matter could be posted for judgment and the judgment passed or not due to the absence of the counsel for the respondents therein.

(2.) Shri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the respondents were not even heard in the matter and without hearing the respondents the matter was posted for judgment by taking the arguments of the respondents as nil. He submits that the date on which the respondents' arguments was taken as nil was 29.06.2020 when the Standard Operating Procedures for District Judiciary issued by this Court was in operation. The said Standard Operating Procedure categorically states that in the absence of the advocate, the matter could not be proceeded with, dismissed or any adverse orders passed.

(3.) On a perusal of the order sheet produced along with the memo dated 31.08.2020 filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is seen that on 04.03.2020, the counsel for the respondents was present, so was he present on 04.03.2020; on which day, the matter was adjourned to 17.03.2020. From 17.03.2020, the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2020, 07.04.2020, 14.05.2020, 28.05.2020 and 11.06.2020. On all those dates, the matter was adjourned on account of the closure notification issued. On 11.06.2020, the matter was taken on board and adjourned to 29.06.2020. On which day, noting the absence of the learned counsel for the respondents and taking the arguments of the respondents as nil, the matter was posted for judgment on 14.07.2020, when the impugned judgment was passed.