GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 14096/2006 is an application by the petitioner seeking restoration of the Writ Petition (C) 2210/1991 which was dismissed on 14.3.2006 by this Court in default on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner. CM 14095/2006 is an application seeking the condonation of delay of 212 days in filing the application for restoration.

(2.) This case was effectively the second in the cause list for 17.11.2006. When the case was called out the Advocate for the applicant/petitioner requested for a pass over on the ground that the senior counsel who was to argue the case was not available at that point in time. We were not minded to entertain this request for two reasons. First, it is clearly indicated in the cause list of this Court that no pass over will be granted in the first five matters. Secondly, we believe that it should be possible for senior counsel to prioritize and organise their professional commitments in a manner that does not inconvenience the Court in having to wait for their eventual appearance, particularly when the case is high up on the board. It is our experience that granting 'pass-overs' for a senior counsel as distinguished from a counsel on record, results in a wastage of the severely scarce time available for hearing and disposal of cases. The intention of the legislature is evident on a perusal of proviso (c) to Rule 2 of Order XVII CPC that the preoccupation of a pleader in another Court is not sufficient reason for granting an adjournment. We, therefore, requested the Advocate for the applicant/petitioner to proceed to make her submissions.

(3.) Ms.Rabina Nath, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner submitted that the cause list for 14.3.2006 did not indicate the name of the Advocate-on-record for the petitioner (M/s. Khaitan and Company) and, therefore, the matter was overlooked. As regards the explanation for the delay, it is stated in the application that the applicant became aware of this fact only "while reviewing the list of its pending matters in September 2006." It is further explained that since the staff of the applicant was preoccupied with various statutory compliances during the month of October 2006, the application for restoration could be filed only on 14.11.2006.