I.A. No. 3 in C.A. No. 1398 of 2005 and in SLP (C) No. 36049 of 2009. Case: Mohammed Israfil Vs Raufunnessa Bibi (D) by Lrs. and Ors.. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||I.A. No. 3 in C.A. No. 1398 of 2005 and in SLP (C) No. 36049 of 2009|
|Party Name:||Mohammed Israfil Vs Raufunnessa Bibi (D) by Lrs. and Ors.|
|Judges:||B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.|
|Issue:||Code of Civil Procedure|
|Citation:||2013 (8) SCALE 759, 2014 (1) SCC 582|
|Judgement Date:||July 08, 2013|
IA No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 1398/2005
An application for restoration of the appeal has been filed as the matter stood dismissed in default vide order dated 8.3.2013. Many of the contents in the application do not seem to be factually correct. In order to understand the same, we wanted an explanation and clarification from the Advocate-on-Record who has signed the application for restoration. Thus, we have passed over the matter and requested the Advocate-on-Record to come to the Court so that we can seek some clarification from him. When the matter was taken up in the second round, we were informed that the Advocate-on-Record Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal refused to come to the Court. However, it has been pointed out that he is the Advocate-on-Record who has filed extremely large number of cases in this Court but he never appears in the Court.
In view of the refusal of the Advocate-on-Record to come to the Court, we have no option but to dismiss the application. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, his conduct makes it necessary for us to issue a show cause notice to Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal. He is hereby issued show cause notice as why his licence as an Advocate-on-Record should not be put under suspension/cancelled as he never appears in the Court and inspite of our request, he refused to come to the Court. His conduct amounts to interfering with the administration, of justice and results in...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL