RANCHI, India, May 1 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 30:

1. This petition was at serial No. 2 on today's cause list and was therefore called out in its turn.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners sought for some accommodation/pass over and the matter was therefore posted after half an hour.

3. The learned counsel who sought a passover has not bothered to appear. Instead, some other lawyer appeared and requested that the matter be kept until 2:15 PM.

4. Upon his being informed that this was not proper, the lawyer left the Court to fetch the earlier lawyer who appeared in the morning session. We informed this lawyer that we would be waiting for both without calling up any other matters. Still, for a long time, neither lawyer has shown up.

5. This petition seeks a review of the order dated 18.04.2017 passed in L.P.A. No. 548 of 2009, where again, the appellants, who are the review petitioners or their advocate, remained absent. Even today, neither the review petitioners nor their advocates have shown the courtesy of appearance despite being informed that the Court is waiting to hear them.

6. The records show several defects pointed out in the review petitions by the Registry. However, the defects have not been cleared to date. Instead, an I.A. has been filed for extension of time. We have considered I.A. No. 4065 of 2026, and we find that there are absolutely no reasons, in any case, good reasons for not clearing the objections for all this while.

7. We note that the order under which the review was sought was made on 18th April 2017, and the review petition was filed on 06.12.2021, i.e., after a delay of almost 4 years. We could not find any application seeking condonation of the delay.

8. Thus, it is apparent that the only aim of instituting this review petition is to keep the matter pending and not pursue it with diligence or otherwise.

9. After this, the Court was made to wait for a long time, Advocate Mr Om Prakash has finally shown the courtesy of an appearance. On instructions from Advocate Mr Ritesh Kumar, he now says that this review petition and the IAs therein are not being pressed. The learned counsel further says that he has also been instructed by Mr Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, not to press this review petition and the Interlocutory Applications therein.

10. Accordingly, we dispose of the I.A. and the review petition on the ground that they are not being pressed. No costs.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.