SHIVRAMBHAI BHUDHIYABHAI KHERAD Vs. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been listed before this Court time and again. On the last occasion, the matter was peremptorily fixed for hearing today. However, today, when the matter was called out in the first session, Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners, requested to hear the matter in the second session. The said request was accepted and accordingly, the matter was kept back for being heard in the second session.

(2.) In the second session, when the matter was called out, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Mehul H. Rathod stated that Mr. Mehul H. Rathod has received instructions on behalf of petitioner no.1 herein to appear in the matter on behalf of all the petitioners and therefore, the matter may be adjourned to some other date beyond vacation. Thus, it appears that in absence of Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, petitioner no. 1 has instructed Mr. Manan Mehta, learned advocate to mention the matter.

(3.) It may be noted that in the first session, when the matter was called out, Mr. Barot had requested to hear the matter in the second session. However, at that time, no mention was made regarding the fact that he now no longer appears in the matter on behalf of the petitioners. When a query in that regard was put to Mr. Barot, he replied by stating that he has been completely caught unaware about the said statement made by Mr. Manan Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, as, at no point of time, the petitioner no. 1 had given any sense regarding the replacement of Mr. Mehul H. Rathod in his place.