19cac491-11F.sxw 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 491 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2011 Shri Sahadev Baburao Raut & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. Smt. Anusaya Mahadeo Bedekar & Anr. ... Respondents. --- None for the Applicants. Mr. K.P. Mali h/for Mr. R.A.Thorat for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 None for the Applicants. Heard Advocate for the Respondents. Perused the Application. The conditional order dated 24.2.2011 could not be complied with on account of the bonafide mistake which is duly explained in the C.A.. 2 Learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the Civil Application by pointing out that in this C.A. there is no prayer for 19cac491-11F.sxw 2 restoration of the C.A.(st.) No. 6741/2011 which is already numbered as Rejected Case No. 515/2011 and therefore, this C.A. cannot be allowed. I have considered this submission. In view of the failure of the Advocate, the Applicant has failed to comply with the conditional order and CRA is dismissed. Merely as a consequence thereof, the aforesaid C.A. No.6741 of 2011 is dismissed and numbered as Rejected Case. 3 Since prayer for restoration of the CRA is made it is not necessary to file a separate C.A. or make a separate prayer for restoration of CA. (st.)No. 6741/2011. Learned Advocate for the Respondents also states that in the absence of the Applicant’s Advocate this C.A. cannot be allowed. I have considered this submission also. I have read the C.A. and explanation given in the C.A.. According to me the explanation given is a plausible and deserves to be accepted. 4 Accepting the explanation, C.A. is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only. Prayer clause (c) will be considered only when the CRA is kept for admission. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application (st.) No. 6741/2011 which is rejected as Rejected Case No. 515/2011 are restored to file. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]