RAJENDRA VINAYAK MEHTA Vs. VEENA JASWANT SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order of a learned single Judge dated 2nd September, 2010, in Criminal Application No.84 of 2008 with Criminal Application No.147 of 2010 with Criminal Application No. 125 of 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1468 of 2003, alongwith Misc. Petition (Lodg) No.306 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 237 of 2009. The appellants before us are original respondent Nos.1 and 2. They are both senior citizens. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the original respondents.

(2.) It is the case of the appellants that they had presented an application on an affidavit dated 5th April 2010 to the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice to take immediate measures to control grant of ex-parte orders, take immediate corrective measures and provide speedy justice to the appellants and consolidate three matters to be heard together, namely, Criminal Writ Petition No.1468 of 2003 of the Appellate Side, Misc. Petition (Lodg) No.306 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 237 of 2009 on the Original Side and Testamentary Petition No. 282 of 2010 on the Original Side. All the three matters were filed by the original respondent No.1 to this appeal and others. An order was passed on 24th August, 2010, clubbing these three matters and assigning them to the learned single Judge. On 30th August, 2010, all three matters were listed on the Board of the learned single Judge for directions. They were adjourned to 1st September, 2010, with a direction to the Constituted Attorney Ms. Smita Patel to satisfy the Court about her authority to argue the matter. It is the appellants' case that they had appointed her as their Constituted Attorney. On that date, namely, on 1st September, 2010, she placed before the Court several authorities in support of her submission that she has been duly authorized in law by these appellants. It is then claimed that on 2nd September, 2010, the impugned order has been passed and we are concerned with the correctness and legality of this order.

(3.) The sequence of events and the essential controversy can very well be appreciated if one reproduces an order passed by this Court on 30th September, 2013, in these very proceedings :