- (1.)ON 10th October, 2013, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners when the case was called out. In the interest of justice, this Court adjourned the case to 20th November, 2013. The order dated 10th October, 2013 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. In the interest of justice adverse orders are deferred. List on 20th November, 2013."

(2.)THE petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 10 th October, 2013 on the ground that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjourn the matter on the first call and therefore, the order is nullity in law. The relevant grounds raised by the petitioners in the application are reproduced hereunder: -
"10. This is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court does not have the jurisdiction ­ the "authority" ­ the "power" ­ to adjourn a matter on first call itself. 11. Hence, the order deserves to be reviewed, and recalled, being a "nullity" in law."

At the time of hearing, petitioner no.2 submitted that there is a Rule that in the event of non -appearance of the petitioner, the Court cannot adjourn the matter on the first call. However, petitioner no.2 could not show any such Rule but he insisted that his statement may be recorded that there is such a Rule.

(3.)THE following two questions arise for consideration in this matter:
i) Whether there is a Rule that this Court cannot adjourn a matter on the first call? Whether the order dated 10th October, 2013 is nullity in law? ii)