Meghalaya High Court
MC(Review Pet.)/10/2023 of SENGACHI M SANGMA Vs SILJON A SANGMA on 9 November 2023
No. 18 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(Review Pet.) 10 of 2023 Date of Order: 09.11.2023 Smti. Sengachi M. Sangma Vs. Shri. Siljon A . Sangma & Ors. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Serial No. 18 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(Review Pet.) 10 of 2023
Date of Order: 09.11.2023Smti. Sengachi M. Sangma Vs. Shri. Siljon A. Sangma & Ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Thapa, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.H. Hazarika, Adv. for R 1. None for R 2-7. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No ORAL: 1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S.
Thapa, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that this Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 passed in the connected petition being Review Petition No. 11 of 2022, had adjourned the hearing of the matter, but had also imposed cost of ₹ 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to be paid in favour of Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority on the ground of adjournment sought for by the conducting senior counsel, Mr. K. Paul who was indisposed.
2. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the applicant has the highest regard for the order passed by this Court, but for the fact that on the said date i.e. 31.10.2023, the learned senior counsel was compelled by circumstances beyond his control due to his being unwell/indisposed. It is therefore not the intention of the review petitioner to delay the proceedings, but for the reasons aforementioned. It is also submitted that imposition of cost has caused great hardship and prejudiced to the review petitioner and as such, it is prayed that the imposition of such cost may be waived.
3. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has not made any submission in this regard.
4. This Court, on consideration of the submission made, would reiterate that it is incumbent upon the parties to ensure that their matter is taken up as and when it is called upon, and that inspite of the previous orders of this Court calling upon the parties to show diligence in this respect, time and again, the matter was adjourned on one or the other grounds.
5. Be that as it may, on the prayer made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, this Court hereby modifies the said order dated 31.10.2023 and the portion indicating imposition of cost is hereby modified to the extent that the cost imposed is now waived.
6. In view of the above, MC(Review Pet.) No. 10 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
09.11.2023 “D. Nary, PS”