9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come infructuous, as the main notices, annexures Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact. The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner prays that the costs of this petition may be awarded to him as due to illegal notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has to file this petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the petitioner to come up before this court. I find sufficient merit in the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that he may not be directed to pay the cost of this petition to the petitioner. But for the document annexure 1, there would not have been any occasion or necessity for respondent No. 3 to issue the impugned notice. Litigation is not a luxury and/or amusement or en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has to file a litigation in the highest court of the State, it is not undesirable or unreasonable on his part to engage the services of a competent advocate. He cannot be asked to engage any advocate. In the matter of engagement of advocate his confidence in him is important. He has all the rights to elect his advocate. On the other hand, the advocate on his being approached by the litigant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 is the concerned person who is a creator of this litigation. He has realised his mistake and ultimately the impugned notice has been withdrawn. Respondent No. 2 is the person concerned who is to be directed by this court to pay the costs to the petitioner.
Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 13,000 as costs of this petition to the petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
