GANGA DEVI Vs. DAN BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Charan Sharma, J. There is an illness slip of the learned counsel for the revisionists, as informed by the Bench Secretary of this Court, but, the learned counsel for the opposite-party Sri Virendra Misra vehemently opposed this request of the learned counsel for the revisionists for adjournment on the basis of illness slip and he also pointed out towards certain orders passed by this Court on different dates for adopting dilatory tactics to prolong this revision on the ground of illness of learned counsel for the revisionists.

(2.) FIRSTLY, learned counsel for the opposite-party pointed out towards the order dated 5th November, 2007. It has been mentioned in this order that "there is illness slip of learned counsel for the revisionists. However, the adjournment has been opposed on the ground that last time also illness slip has been sent while revision is not maintainable and the proceedings have been stayed". Further learned counsel for the opposite-party attracted the attention of the Court towards order dated 15th January, 2008 and on that date also, the case was adjourned on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the revisionists and it was specifically ordered on 15th January, 2008 that although the case is adjourned but no further adjournment shall be granted. Again the same history was repeated by seeking adjournment on the ground of illness on 4th April, 2008. There was illness slip on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionists as usual as also learned counsel for the opposite-party Sri Virendra Misra opposed the adjournment and attracted the attention towards the orders of this Court dated 5th November, 2007 and 15th January, 2008 and after hearing the learned counsel for the opposite-parties, al though the case was adjourned but the stay granted earlier was vacated. There after this case was listed on 11th April, 2008 and 12th May, 2008 and, on both the dates, the case was adjourned on the prayer of learned counsel for the revision ists. However, on 18th July, 2008 also, the case was listed in the Court and, on that date also, illness slip was filed by the learned counsel for the revisionists namely Sri Shesh Verma and thereafter the case has been listed today and by pointing out different orders of this Court, learned counsel for the opposite-party stated that there is no justification now to adjourn this revision and he also stated that the revisionists' counsel is aware of the settled position of law on this point and even then he is prolonging the matter.

(3.) I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submis sions of the learned counsel for the opposite-party.