JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Mr. Darsh P. Desai, learned advocate for the applicant has argued at length for about 25 minutes, as he is repeating arguments even after being requested not to do so. While concluding, he referred to citations, but instead of highlighting relevant facts and ratio, he began to read them in entirety. So, the Court asked to the learned advocate first to show the relevancy of the judgment and how it is applicable to the fact of the case on hand, attention drawn towards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, 2013 (10) SCC 95. Despite time and again efforts to avoid unnecessary time consumption, he continued to do so. Such attitude on the part of the learned advocate is nothing but to waste the precious time of the Court and any how to prolong the matter.

1.1 However, due to lunch break and considering the time consumed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to ward off apprehension of injustice caused on the part of the Court and the petitioner is denied fair and impartial hearing, the learned advocate for the petitioner is once again directed to sum up and co