1 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1257 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 1989 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri Rahul S. Kate for the Applicant. Ms Snehal Ratnakar i/by Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik for Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents by contending that there is no explanation for long delay of about six years. 2. The writ petition was dismissed on account of failure of the Advocate of the Applicant to remove a technical objection. For bringing legal representatives of various deceased Respondents on record, one common 2 application was filed and the office had raised objection to filing of one common application. The said objection was not removed. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-removal of the office objections. The writ petition had remained pending from the year 1989 to 2004. The applicant cannot be allowed to suffer as his matter was dismissed on account of technical defect. Hence, a case for restoration is made out. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). (A.S.OKA, J)