D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is present while none has appeared for the contesting respondent even in the revised list.
(2.) From the record, it is apparent that earlier Sri G.P. Mathur, as he then was (now Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur) was appearing as counsel for the respondents and after his elevation notice was issued in the year 1993 to the respondents for engaging another counsel but none has filed his appearance, though notice is sufficient in view of the office report dated 1.7.2003. I see no reason to adjourn the case on this score, especially so, when pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.;