mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 791 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION N O. 4473 OF 1992 KISAN GANPAT PADWAL since deceased through his Lrs. Smt. Mangal Kisanrao Padwal & Ors. .. .. APPLICANTS Vs. SHANKAR GANPATRAO KANDEKAR & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for the applicants Mr. Madhav Jamdar for respondents CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED: 7/4/2010 P.C. This civil application is filed praying that order dated 22/8/05 passed by this court on Civil Application No. 430 of 2005 be recalled. It is pointed out that this writ petition was admitted on 13/11/92 and interim relief was granted. On 23/3/94 order was passed that if objections are not removed within 4 weeks the petition shall stand dismissed. Since objections were not removed the petition stood dismissed. 2. Civil Application (ST.) No. 45842 of 2001 was taken out for setting aside the Registrar’s order. That civil application was also dismissed vide conditional order dated 11/3/02. By order dated 15/2/05 passed in Civil Application No. 657 of 2003, Civil Application (ST.) No. 45842 of 2001 was restored to file as that civil application was for setting aside the Registrar’s order. However, no order was passed restoring the writ petition. 3. Civil Application (ST.) 45842 of 2001 was numbered as Civil Application No. 430 of 2005. On 22/8/05 the petitioner’s counsel made a statement that writ petition is already restored to the file. On that statement Civil Application No. 430 of 2005 which was filed for restoration of the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. This was obviously wrong because it is only Civil Application (ST.) No. 45842 of 2001 which was restored. A wrong statement resulted in an incorrect order. This is the reason why in the present civil application prayer is made that order dated 22/8/05 be recalled. 4. It is true that on account of a wrong statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner it was incorrectly stated in the order dated 22/8/05 that writ petition is already restored to the file. Today learned counsel for both sides are present before me. Sufficient time has already gone by in prosecuting these civil applications. I feel that, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to now order that the writ petition should be restored to the file. 5. Hence Writ Petition No. 4473 of 1992 is restored to the file. Civil Application is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)