BRIJLAL MOHANLAL RATHI Vs. DAYALGIR DOULATGIR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Mangrulpir. However, the decree was reversed by the first appellate Court and the aggrieved plaintiffs are the present appellants. The plaintiff No. 3 had died during the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal. His heirs being already on record, they have filed the present appeal. The appellant No. 6 who was included in the array of the appellants later on, has purchased the suit property and has stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiffs.

(2.) WHEN the appeal was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent original defendant, Advocate Shri B. N. Mohta orally informed the Court that his client has informed him not to appear in the matter. In view that he could not be discharged at the last moment, his oral request for permitting his discharge, was refused.

(3.) THE appeal was heard on 16-6-2004. On 17-6-2004, Advocate Shri B. N. Mohta has filed a pursis placing on record his inability to argue in view of specific instructions from his client on 4th October, 2002. In view of this, none has caused appearance in his place, as well there is no proper prayer for discharge made well before the case reaches hearing. No cognizance of such pursis can be taken.