1 CRA-528=529-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 528 of 2010 WTH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 529 OF 2010 C.R.A.NO. 528 OF 2010 Shri Gulam Mohidin Ziyauddin Farid ... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Vithabai Gopal Taware ... Respondent C.R.A. NO. 529 OF 2010 The Bombay Bricks & Tiles Ltd. .. Petitioner vs. Smt. Vithabai Gopal Taware .. Respondent Mr. J.S.Chandnani i/b. Pravin B. Shewale, Advocate, for the Petitioner. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 15th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision applicant. 2. These Revision Applications are filed by the original defendant in Suit No.1185 of 2001 and No.1194/2001 respectively. The suits were dismissed on 10.1.2005 as on that day an adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiff and that adjournment application was rejected. On 25.2.2005, the plaintiff filed Misc. Application Nos.25/2005 and 26/2005 for restoration of the suits. The 2 CRA-528=529-10.sxw applications were strongly opposed by the defendant. The trial Court recorded he evidence of the parties and after considering the reasons given by the plaintiff, the trial Court allowed the said applications and passed the impugned order restoring both he suits at the same stage at which they were dismissed in default. The order of restoration is challenged in the present Revision Applications. 3. The record reveals that the suits were filed in 2001 and were ready for hearing in the year 2002. However, it appears that the suits were taken up for actual recording of evidence from July 2004. On that day, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of examination in chief and the matter was adjourned for cross- examination to 6.9.2004 and again adjourned to 13.9.2004 on the request of the plaintiff as she was not keeping well. On similar ground, the matter was adjourned to 29.9.2004, 4.10.2004, 25.10.2004, and 25.11.2004. Thus, though these adjournments were granted, they were all during the period of about one and half month and the reason was that the plaintiff was not keeping well. Thereafter, the plaintiff constituted an attorney to look after the matters on 18.11.2004. The matter was again adjourned on the ground that he was busy in examinations in the school. After one more adjournment on 2.12.2004, evidence of the Constituted attorney, namely, Jayant Gopal Taware was recorded partly and the matter was adjourned to 10.1.2005 for further examination-in-chief. On 3 CRA-528=529-10.sxw 10.1.2005, the said constituted attorney moved an application for adjournment on the ground that his wife was admitted in hospital and it was necessary for him to attend her. On that day, adjournment application was rejected and the trial court dismissed the suit in default. The trial Court while allowing the application for restoration noted all these facts and also noted that on 10.1.2005, the wife of the constituted attorney of the plaintiff was admitted in the hospital for delivery purpose and, therefore, it was necessary for him to be with her side and thus there was genuine reason to seek adjournment and therefore the application can be allowed. 4. In view of the facts and the reasons noted above, it is difficult to find any fault, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order restoring the suits. It may further be noted that in the suits substantial evidence of the plaintiff was already recorded and, therefore, in view of the explanation to Order XVII Rule 2, the suits could not have been dismissed in default. The Court could have disposed of the matter on its own merits presuming the parties were present but could not dismiss in default. This could be another reason for restoration of the matter. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Revision Applications stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)