NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. A CHALAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed for review of order dated 15-2-2010 in M.A.C.M.A.No. 2379/2006.

(2.) At the hearing, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the review petitioner, stated that the only ground on which the review petition is filed is that this Court, in the order under review, has marked his absence, while disposing of the M.A.C.M.A. He submitted that as a section of the Advocates has given a call for boycott of the Courts, he was prevented from attending the Courts on 15-2-2010 and consequently he was not present in the Court when the case was heard and disposed of. According to him, this Court ought to have adjourned the case to another date instead of disposing of the same. He therefore sought for review of the order by deleting the part of the order whereby his absence is marked.

(3.) 1 am afraid, this request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. On his own showing, his name as the counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 in the M.A.C.M.A., has been very much shown in the cause-list on 15-2-2010. The Counsel who filed his personal affidavit has not disclosed the names of the persons who allegedly prevented him from attending the Courts on the said date. It is also not his case that he sought the help of the Management of the High Court to prevent the agitators from obstructing him from attending the Court. Time and again, Courts held that boycott of the Courts is unconstitutional and does not behoove the noble profession they belong to. This Court cannot therefore recognize such calls of boycott by the Advocates.