SADANAND APA KAMBLI Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT BANDORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) After having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent no.2, what is seen is the fact that on 01/02/2014, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent no.2 were present before the District Judge and on that date, at the instance of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned. It becomes clear that on that date, the matter was adjourned not to 03/01/2015 as stated in the application, but to 15/12/2014. Now, it is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that instead of noting the date of 15/12/2014, the date was noted in the diary of learned Counsel for the petitioner as 15/01/2015. The rojnama which is produced before this Court and taken on record vide document X also shows that on 01/12/2014, the Revision Application was adjourned to 15/12/2014 and not to 03/01/2015, as stated in the application filed for restoration of the Revision Application. The mentioning of the date of 03/01/2015, appears to be a mistake committed while drafting this application.

(3.) At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity is given, the petitioner would submit his written notes of argument before the District Court and also on the same day would make his oral submissions.