VISHNU BABUSSO NAIK Vs. RAUJI YESSO NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Sawaikar waives notice for all the respondents.

(3.) THE Court below has rejected the application firstly on the ground that it was not open to the Court to grant fourth adjournment and secondly because no case whatsoever was set out in the application as filed relating to the inability of the plaintiffs Attorney to remain present in Court. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, that aspect is squarely answered in favour of the petitioner in the unreported decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.294/2003 decided on August 7, 2003 in Vishwas Yeshwant Vaingankar and another v. Helena Mascrenhas e Souza Ticlo and another. Insofar as the second ground which weighed with the Court below is concerned, pursuant to liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed affidavit of his Power of Attorney as well as his personal affidavit setting out detailed reasons which prevented the Power of Attorney of the Petitioner to remain present in Court. The Petitioner has also explained his inability to remain present in Court. The averments made in those affidavits have remained uncontroverted. It necessarily follows that the cause as made out in the said affidavits deserve to be accepted as sufficient cause. Besides it is seen that before the Court below the respondents have clearly conceded that they have no objection for granting adjournment as prayed by the petitioner. Even for that reason the application for adjournment ought to have been allowed by the Court below.