vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4326 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.4326 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.4326 OF 2009 Jaideep Exhibitors & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.H. Ujjainwalla for Petitioner Mr.M.M. Malvikar for Respondent-Corporation CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MAY 5, 2009 MAY 5, 2009 MAY 5, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on 27.2.2009 by the Small Causes Court in Miscellaneous Notice No.32 of 2008 in Municipal Appeal Stamp No.263 of 2003. The Appeal had been preferred by the petitioner within the period of limitation. However, on 22.8.2006, an order was passed by the Small Causes Court directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.20,20.230/- with the respondent Corporation on or before 14.9.2006. It was further directed that if the appellant i.e. the Petitioner herein failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the appeal would automatically stand dismissed. 2. It appears that from the affidavit filed by the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the Corporation in : 2 : reply to the Miscellaneous Notice certain amounts were paid by the petitioner within the stipulated time. However, the entire amount was paid only after the time granted by the Court to pay the amount had expired. He has further stated that Rs.8 lakhs has been paid within the time granted whereas the amount of Rs.13 lakhs was paid thereafter. 3. However, today it is undisputed that the entire amount directed by the Court to be deposited with the Corporation has been deposited by the petitioner. In these circumstances, in my view, it would be appropriate to restore the appeal. 4. The Small Causes Court, while rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal, has held that the petitioner had not explained the delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal. However, a perusal of the application which is annexed to this petition indicates that the petitioner had stated that his advocate was unwell and was hospitalised time and again from September 2006. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner was unable to attend the Court and comply with the impugned orders. The certificates showing the hospitalisation of the advocate have been annexed to the application. Furthermore, the concerned advocate later passed away because of his failing : 3 : health. 5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Municipal Appeal Stamp No.263 of 2003 is restored to file. The appeal shall be numbered and heard and disposed of in accordance with law. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.