(1) CRI.APP. 3483.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3483 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2009 Balasaheb S/o Deorao Khandale .. Applicant VERSUS Manisha w/o Balasaheb Khandale .. Respondent Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent­State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:­ 1. Heard. The Application is for condonation of delay. The delay is of 323 days in filing of the Application seeking restoration of the Criminal Writ Petition no. 351 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by order dated 7.9.2009. 2. The learned Advocate would submit that the Criminal Writ Petition was not shown on the board of hearing in the causelist which was published by the (2) CRI.APP. 3483.2010 High Court Bar Association. The Advocate, therefore, was under the impression that the matter was not listed for hearing. So, he could not verify the date scheduled for hearing of the matter. It is argued that the delay is bonafide and that the Petition deserves to be restored. 3. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. If the causelist of the Bar Association did not reflect the status of the Writ Petition on the board of hearing, within a reasonable time the Advocate could have located the status. The delay of approximately one year is not properly explained. Ordinarily the Advocate would have been curious enough to make enquiry about the status of the Petition within a short time and particularly when the date was fixed as 7.9.2009 while granting adjournment on 24.8.2009. The reasons stated in the Application are therefore un­acceptable. Application is therefore dismissed. Sd/­ [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp