- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION REVISION REVISION APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2003 APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2003 APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2003 Hansa Padamraj Bhandari ...Petitioner vs. Dr.Dinesh V. Bhat and another ...Respondents Mr.N.K.Dayanand h/f M/s.Arvind Rathod & Co. for the petitioner Ms A.T.Javeri A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 8,2009 : APRIL 8,2009 : APRIL 8,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. None for the applicant. By order dated 31st August 2006, this court directed the applicant to furnish correct address of respondent no.1 on or before 16th October 2006. It was directed that if the correct address was not furnished on or before the stipulated date, the revision application will stand dismissed for non prosecution. Office treated the revision application as dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter, a praecipe was filed by the Advocate for the applicant on 15th February 2008 recording therein that on 19th September 2006 fresh address was furnished by the Advocate for the applicant. Perusal of the praecipe filed by the Advocate for the applicant containing a fresh address shows that the address mentioned in the praecipe is the same address as in the cause title of this revision application. Notice sent on the same address of the first respondent is returned with remark ‘incomplete address’. Therefore, a clear direction was issued on 31st August 2006 directing the applicant to supply - 2 - correct address of the first respondent on or before 16th October 2006. The praecipe allegedly filed by the Advocate for the applicant giving same address which is mentioned in the cause title of the revision application cannot be treated as compliance with order dated 31st August 2006. Hence, in view of failure of the applicant to comply with the said order dated 31st August 2006, revision application stands dismissed for non prosecution. Prayer made by the praecie dated 15th February 2008 by the Advocate for the applicant is therefore rejected. This order will not preclude the applicant from making a separate application for restoration. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE