Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has been authorized by Shri Tamboli, Advocate for the petitioner to appear on his behalf.  Authorization letter was submitted in the Registry on 07.10.2013.

On 06.08.2013, following proceedings were drawn:

          “This revision petition was filed on 12.03.2013.  On receipt of the revision petition, Registry pointed out certain defects.  The petitioner was given time to remove the defects but the defects have not been removed.  As a consequence, the Registrar vide his order dated 20.05.2013 had directed the file to be placed before the Bench.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that defects could not be removed because of most of the documents are in vernacular and it would take some time to get the translated copies prepared.  There is no merit in the explanation given by the counsel.  It is not understandable as to why the petitioner has not been able to get the documents vernacular translated into English during the last five months.  Be that as it may, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner for getting translation subject to cost of Rs. 7500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent by way of Bank Draft within four weeks for the delay caused in execution of the order fora below.

          List on 08.10.2013.”

2.      Despite of the opportunity given to the petitioner to remove the defects pointed out by the Registry, the petitioner has failed to do so.  Counsel for the petitioner states that the costs for adjournment has not been paid.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter dated 20.09.2013, the petitioner was informed of the order passed by this Commission but the petitioner has neither cared to make available the translated copies of the relevant documents nor he has sent any proof regarding the payment of costs.

3.      In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.