1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 737 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2004 M/s.Rajashri Rubber Products ... Applicant v/s Shri Kantilal Dwarkya Raut ... Respondent Mr.Pravartak Pathak i/by Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the applicant. Mr.Y.M.Pendse for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. The present civil application has been filed for restoring the first appeal which was dismissed on account of conditional order which was passed on 9.2.2007. 2. The first appeal came up for orders on 9.2.2007 when a learned Single Judge of this Court noted that the certificate of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation as required by the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 had not been produced by the 2 appellant. The appellant was granted a period of six weeks from the date of the order to produce the certificate failing which the appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. It appears that the appeal had already been dismissed in view of the order passed on 30.10.2007 since the appellant had failed to comply with the conditional order passed on 9.2.2007. 3. The appellant then moved Civil Application No.1031 of 2008. The prayer in that civil application was for restoration of the appeal. On 22.2.2008 this prayer was denied to the appellant. The mandatory provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to deposit the decretal amount with the Commissioner for Workmen”s Compensation before presenting the appeal had not been complied. While passing the order, the learned Judge noted that although the conditional order was passed on 9.2.2007, the appellant had failed to deposit the amount as directed for over a year and, therefore, the civil application was rejected. 4. In my opinion, this civil application also cannot be entertained. This is because the prayers sought in the present civil application are the same as were sought in Civil Application No.1031 of 2008. Apart from this, no case for restoration of the appeal has been made out by the applicant. 5. Civil application dismissed. ..... 3 4