:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 315 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2008 Shri Prakash Besant Nima ..Applicant Vs. Smt. Meenakashi Prakash Nima Nee Miss Munni K. Sagar ..Respondent Mr. N.H. Vyas for applicant. Mr. G.M. Savagave for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : February 24, 2009. Date : February 24, 2009. Date : February 24, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Vyas the learned counsel for the applicant-husband who had filed Family Court Appeal under Stamp No. 92 of 2008 and the same was dismissed for non prosecution on 9/7/2008. Hence this application for restoration of the said appeal. 2. We had noted in our order dated 9/7/2008 that when the appeal was taken up 7/7/2008, none was present for the appellant and same was the case when :2: it was taken up on 9/7/2008 and consequently it was dismissed for non prosecution. The office note indicates that this application is beyond time by 76 days and when we heard the learned counsel on 16/2/2009 we had called upon him to file a separate application for condonation of delay. No such application has been filed and Mr.Vyas insisted that he has set out sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. We have perused para 6 of this application and it does not give any reasons to condone the delay, except to say, "However, the delay, if any, be condoned". Mr. Vyas relied upon the decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353]. In our opinion, the observations made in the said decision by Their Lordships are not applicable to the facts of this case. 3. However, the appeal came to be dismissed for non prosecution for the reasons solely attributable to the learned Advocate for the appellant and we should not allow the litigant to suffer for the reasons :3: attributable to the Advocate and while doing so we will have to impose exemplary costs. 4. Hence, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.2000/- and to be paid to the the respondent-wife before the next date and by a Demand Draft drawn in her favour. Family Court Appeal No. 92 of 2008 is restored to file and be listed for admission on 16/3/2009. 5. Application is disposed off accordingly. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)