ASHARFI LAL Vs. RAJASWA PARISHAD & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Arun Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.

(2.) The present writ petition was filed in the year, 2004. From a perusal of the order-sheet it appears that till date the case was never comprehensively argued by any counsel for the petitioner and therefore, notices have not yet been issued to respondent nos. 3 to 7, who would have been contesting respondents in the writ petition. Since 2011, the case has been continuously adjourned either on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner or on illness slips sent on his behalf. Today again, the counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit, which if permitted, would have been the fourth supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in the case. However, as the matter is pending since, 2004, the Court has proceeded to hear the case on merits to consider whether it was a fit case for issuing notice to respondent nos. 3 to 7.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that second supplementary affidavit annexing certain documents was filed by him in the present writ petition in 2012. As the said supplementary affidavit was not on record, therefore, a copy of the said supplementary affidavit has been supplied by the counsel for the petitioner to the Court, which is taken on record as certain documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit have been referred by the counsel for the petitionerduring the course of arguments.