1 wp 6957.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6957 OF 2011 Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Habib and others .. Petitioners Versus Jugalkishor Ramkishanji Jaju .. Respondent Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petition is filed against the order passed by the District Court restoring the appeal to its original position. The present respondent had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed for default, as the advocate for the appellant did not appear. Thereafter, the present respondent filed an application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2010. The said order is not assailed by the present petitioners. Thereafter, the District Court allowed the 2 wp 6957.11 application for restoration vide order dated 11.08.2011. The same is assailed in the present petition. 2. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration and the grounds on which the appeal is restored are altogether different. There is no consistency in the grounds stated in the application. It was stated that the advocate of the respondent was pregnant. Whereas in the order it was observed that the said advocate had joined judiciary. Both the grounds cannot go hand in hand. The District Court could not have exercised its discretion on such frivolous grounds. According to the learned counsel, as false facts were stated by the respondent, the respondent is not entitled for any equitable relief. 3. The District Court while readmitting the appeal has discussed about the fact that the counsel appointed by the present respondent had joined judiciary. The said fact is not disputed. In such circumstances, it can be assumed that the petitioner did not have the knowledge of the proceedings. The District Court has also observed that the present respondent has 3 wp 6957.11 given sufficient cause for not remaining present, as the respondent had met with an accident. 4. The discretion has been exercised by the District Court in plausible manner. The same need not to be interfered with in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11