- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.22 OF 2006 IN CIVIL APPLICATION No. 228 OF 2006 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) No.5047 OF 2006 Union of India ... Applicant. Vs. Stanley Joseph Creado & Ors.... Respondent Mr. Y.S. Rajguru for respondent i/b Purohit & Purohit. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. DATE : April 3, 2006. P.C. . Heard. Perused the application. The explanation offered is unacceptable. The grievance made by the counsel that the application was lodged on 1st of March, 2006, and there was no reason for listing of the application on 2nd March, 2006, it only reflects about the ignorance of the counsel about the practice of this Court. The practice direction followed by the registry, since January 2006, is that once Civil Application is lodged and given regular number the same is required to be listed immediately on the following court working day before the Court for order. Besides, the matter to be heard on a given day are notified on - 2 - the Board published by the Registry which is circulated to the members of the Bar on the previous evening. The Advocate on record is expected to watch the daily board. No reason is forthcoming for the said lapse. 2. Be that as it may, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of an advocate, reliefs granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) on condition that the advocate on record for the Union of India shall personally pay costs to the High Court Legal Services, quantified at Rs. 750/-, within one week from today and report compliance to the registry within the specified time. [ A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]