cra128.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2011. Sheshrao Sahebrao Bhandwalkar. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Ali Bin Ahmed Bashumal. .. RESPONDENT. ... Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. DATE : 10.06.2011. PER COURT: 1. This civil revision application has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd February, 2011 passed by the Joint Ad-hoc District Judge, Jalna in M.C.A. No.07 of 2009. 2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that for eleven years the respondent had not taken any steps and even process fees was not paid though the Darkhast cra128.11 2 was filed in the year, 1995 and it seems that as no steps were taken, the Darkhast was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 3rd March, 2006. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in absence of any sufficient cause shown by the respondent, the lower appellate Court should not have allowed the application of the petitioner for restoration of the Darkhast. The learned Counsel invited my attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned order and submitted that the learned Judge has considered the application of the respondent beyond the pleadings in the application and without any cogent reasons, has allowed the application for restoration of the Darkhast. She, therefore, submits that this Court may interfere in the impugned order. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower cra128.11 3 appellate Court. In paragraph 6 thereof, the lower appellate Court has adverted to the contentions of the respondent. It is true that there is no sufficient cause supported by documentary evidence produced by the respondent. However, in his application the respondent did contend that he was absent as he had gone out of station for seeking a job and he, therefore, could not contact his advocate and take further steps. The lower Appellate Court, relying on the said explanation and taking lenient view in the matter, to meet ends of justice, has allowed the application for restoration of the Darkhast. The application filed for restoration of Darkhast was within limitation. By not taking immediate steps in Darkhast, the respondent had no intention to cause any loss to the other side. On the contrary, the respondent himself has been put to loss by not taking steps in the matter. In my opinion, there is no any jurisdictional error committed cra128.11 4 by the Court below. The Court, which has passed the impugned order, has jurisdiction to pass the order. 4. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, no case is made out for causing interference in the impugned order. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*