1 30 caw 547.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2045 OF 1999 Tanaji D. Chavan ... Applicant. Vs. The Partner, M/s. Plastica Interlink Industrial Estate ..Respondent. Mr. Mahendra Agavekar for applicant. Ms. Sneha Nanandkar i/b Mr. Vivek Kantawala & Co. for respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 15 April, 2011. PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 This application is preferred by original petitioner for recalling the order dated 9th September, 2010 by which the present writ petition was dismissed for default. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that because of mistake on the part of previous advocate, the petition was dismissed for default. He submits that since applicant learnt about the dismissal of the writ petition, he immediately 2 30 caw 547.11.doc contacted his previous advocate and collected papers and no objection from him and appointed advocate for filing this civil application. The applicant has explained these reasons in his affidavit in rejoinder dated 11th April,2011 and particularly in paragraph no.2. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the said application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that applicant failed to disclose any cogent reason for condonation of more than seven months delay in preferring the present civil application. She further submits that applicant failed to file affidavit of advocate’s clerk and advocate to explain why no one was present when matter was called out twice for hearing on 9th September, 2010. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that there is no substance to recall the order and the same is to be dismissed with costs. 4 From the affidavit in rejoinder dated 11th April, 2011, it is clear that because of the mistake on the part of the applicant’s previous advocate, matter came to be dismissed for default. Reasons are disclosed by the applicant in paragraph no.2 of his affidavit in rejoinder dated 11th April, 2011. Considering the 3 30 caw 547.11.doc submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and the averments made in the civil application as well as in the affidavit in rejoinder, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to payment of costs Rs.750/- to the respondent. 5 The applicant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/- to the respondent within three weeks from today. 6 Prayer clause (a) and (b) read as under: “(a) That delay cause if any filing in the above Civil Application be condoned, (b) That the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Hon’ble court be recalled, quashed and set aside & above writ Petition may be restored to final hearing and the same may be heard and decided on merits.” 7 Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.Tated, J.)