JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule.

2.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner, who appears in person is not present today. Learned Counsel for the respective parties, waive service. The respondent No. 2 being a formal party, notice dispensed with.

3.The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Council, Parbhani and Maharashtra State Electricity Board at Parbhani. The suit was based on substantive rights of the petitioner on the property and illegal and high handed approach made with mala fide intention by the defendants. The petitioner had also applied for temporary injunction, during pendency of the said civil suit. The petitioner had engaged one Shri G.S. Deshpande-Aundhekar, Advocate along with the present respondent No. 3. Both these advocates had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Chavhan, a junior had also signed the said vakil patra with these two advocates.

4.It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 prosecuted cause of the petitioner in an application for temporary injunction,. That application was, however, d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document