Thammaiah
Gowda Vs. Shekar & Ors. [2010] INSC 296 (20 April 2010)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2899 OF 2002 Thammaiah Gowda
...Appellant(s) Versus Shekar and Ors. ...Respondent(s) O R D E R The High
Court's Order against which this appeal is preferred directed for the
appellant's ejectment from the land forming the subject-matter of the writ
petition. The appellant came to this Court making the grievance that the order
was passed in a public interest litigation and it went beyond the relief
claimed in the writ petition. Though leave was granted for filing appeal, this
Court did not pass any interim order in the appellant's favour. On notice being
issued, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that,
in pursuance of the High Court's direction, the appellant was dispossessed from
the disputed land (which happens to be a forest land) and the State has resumed
its possession.
When the
case was called out, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, who is the Advocate-on-record, filed an
interlocutory application for his discharge from this case. In the discharge
application it is stated that on receipt of a copy of the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the State, he sought further instructions from the appellant
or his son, but he never received any response from them. The relevant extract
from the application for discharge is reproduced below:
"Although
the Advocates for the Appellant have informed him of the listing of the case and
the developments, there has been no communication, information or instructions
from the Appellant to his Advocates. The Applicant has tried to obtain
instructions from the Appellant as to the developments in the case. No
instructions are forthcoming from the Appellant or his son. The Applicant's
colleague Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Advocate who is handling this case has
contacted the Appellant and his son on several occasions and has also written
letters. Finally, under cover of the letter dated January 16, 2010, the
Advocates for the Appellant have informed him that they will withdraw from the
case and that....."
In these
circumstances, we allow the prayer for discharge and direct that the
vakalatnama filed on behalf of the appellant be cancelled and he be discharged
from this case.
This is
not the end of the matter. The discharge application clearly indicates that the
appellant has lost interest in the matter and he is no longer interested in
prosecuting the appeal. In that circumstance, the civil appeal is dismissed for
non-prosecution.
......................J. [AFTAB ALAM]
......................J. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]
New Delhi,
April 20, 2010.
Back