FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 5795 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION [St] NO.: 9245 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.: 66 OF 1998 1. Ms. Ujjwal Agarwal is present for the Applicant.. No one is present for the Respondents. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of eight years and 99 days in filing application for restoration of second appeal No.66 of 1998. Ms. Agarwal drew my attention to contents of application in para Nos.7 and 8. The original papers of the second appeal clearly indicates that on the very first day of hearing for admission on 16th January, 2001, the matter was called out in the morning. No one was present. No one was present even in the afternoon when it was dismissed for default. The dismissal was on 16th January, 2001 and the applicants have stated that they learned about dismissal only on 3rd April, 2008. It is alleged that they were inquiring with their Advocate from time to time but they were told by the Advocate that the appeal FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. would come up for hearing in due course and proceedings were pending. In other words, it is alleged that the learned Advocate, who appeared for the Appellants made the Appellants to believe that the appeal was pending even after 16th January, 2001 till 2008; and on 3rd April, 2008, for the first time, the Appellants learnt about the dismissal. It is very difficult to believe that the Advocate would be misleading the clients. If really the applicants had approached Advocate he would have made application for restoration at the earliest. It is difficult to blame the Advocate merely relying on the interested word of one of the Applicants. The delay is enormous. I am not satisfied with the reasons given for delay of 8 years and 99 days, in making the application for restoration. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is dismissed. [P. R. BORKAR, J.] Dated:19.06.2009 ans/5795