-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1574 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1574 OF 2008 Sakina Bhopali & ors. : Appellants v/s Sayed Mohsin Ibrahim Qadri : Respondents Ms. N.M. Baig Advocate for Appellant Sayeed Aktar Advocate for Respondent no.2 Coram : Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J. Date : 9.4.2009 P.C. . The civil application is taken out for setting aside the order dt. 27.1.2009 dismissing the appeal and for its restoration. The application was filed on 4.3.2009. Thus there is delay in filing the application for restoration. The application does not contain prayer for condonation of delay. For that reason alone the civil application is liable to be dismissed. . Even if the application is to be considered on its merits it can be seen that there is no merit whatsoever in it as can be demonstrated hereinafter. -2- . The appellants are original defendants. The appeal filed by them was admitted on 4.8.2008. They were to deposit the bhatta charges for service of notice upon the respondent by 26.8.2008. As the applicants failed to deposit bhatta charges the office on 27.1.2009 due to self operative order dismissed the appeal. The reason given in the application for nonpayment of Bhatta charges reads as follows. "Applicant is not medically fit and suffering from ailment, it was not possible for him to communicate with the advocate and other appellants." The appeal has been filed by four appellants. It is not known from the application as to which of the applicant was medically unfit. Even if one of the appellants were to be medically unfit there is no explantion as to why the other appellants could not take the required steps in the matter. . Further at para 3 of the application it is stated that the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, in the year 2008 was out of Bombay busy attending to a matter at Ranchi High court before Justice Shri N.Y. Iqbal and therefore she could not remain present in the court when the matter was listed on the board. If the learned counsel was busy elsewhere it was incumbent on the part of the -3- appellants to make suitable alternate arrangement for appearance in the matter. Professional inconvenience or preoccupation of counsels cannot be a ground for restoration. In these circumstances the civil application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, J)