IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2007 M/s.Raju Road Lines & another. ... Applicants. V/s. M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another. ... Respondents. N.U.Khan for the applicants. Subodh Desai i/b. R.M.G.Law Associates for respondent No.1. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. . Perused record. 2. The applicants had given undertaking to this Court to deposit balance amount of Rs.7,40,000/- within three weeks from today. This undertaking was accepted vide order dated 17th October, 2007 and the matter was adjourned for three weeks. As such this matter ought to have been listed after three weeks from 17th October, 2007. The registry did not take care to follow the order dated 17th October, 2007. At the same time, the applicants also did not take any steps to bring this matter before this Court. Apart from this, if the applicants were finding any difficulty to comply with the undertaking, it was their duty to move this Court for extension of time. Even that step has not been taken by the applicants. On being asked, learned counsel for the applicants states that he has no explanation to offer for either of the lapses mentioned hereinabove. 3. In the above view of the matter, I have no option but to dismiss this revision application for want of compliance of the order dated 17th October, 2007 as well as for non-compliance of the undertaking. 4. It would be open to the respondents to initiate contempt proceedings against the applicants, if advised, for non-compliance of the undertaking given to this Court. 5. The amount already deposited by the applicants in this Court is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent No.1. The registry is directed to pay the said amount to respondent No.1 by drawing payees-account cheque in its favour. 6. Mere dismissal would not serve interest of justice unless heavy costs is saddled and directions are given. The revision application is dismissed with - 3 - costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1. The applicants are directed to surrender before the trial Court. 7. The Registrar General is directed to seek explanation from concerned clerk or officer as to why this matter was not listed after lapse of three weeks as ordered in the order dated 17th October, 2007. The explanation be placed on record within two weeks from today. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE