1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.687 of 2010 (Smt. Jamila Beg wd/o Mirza Beg v. Nagpur Gujrathi Brahma Samaj) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Ms K.P. Vaidya, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 7 th March, 2011 This petition challenges the order dated 24-3-2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur, refusing to restore the matter, which was dismissed in default on 11-2-2009. The case of the petitioner was that she is an old lady of 75 years and is suffering from hypertension and pain in chest, and, therefore, she could not appear in the matter. The Appellate Court has recorded the finding that on earlier occasion on 9-2-2005, the appeal was dismissed in default and after restoration of the same, the petitioner was not present on 17-10-2008, 22-10-2008, 12-11-2008, 26-11-2008, 7-1-2009, 19-1-2009 and 11-2-2009. Ms K.P. Vaidya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the son of the petitioner used to attend the matters and was present in the Court, but his presence was not marked. 2 She further submits that the counsel for the petitioner was under impression that the matter was fixed for receiving the record of the lower Court, and hence the matter remained unattended by the counsel. According to her, no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the matter is restored. She submits that sufficient cause was shown to restore the matter and the Appellate Court committed an error in not restoring the matter. It is not in dispute that the matter pertains to eviction of tenant from the suit premises. The decree for possession was passed by the Trial Court. Shri Shelat, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, submits that the possession has already been taken by the respondent/landlord in execution of the decree. In view of this event, without going into the merits of the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl