Ladda 1 appw-144-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 144 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION No. 420 of 2002. Shri Kamtam Annamayya Sudarshan ...PETITIONER Versus Editor Maharashtra Times and others ...RESPONDENTS. ...... Mr P.M. Pradhan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt Mugdha Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Mrs M.R.Tidke, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 8th April, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. This application is preferred by the applicant-original complainant for restoration of earlier dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 2002 and also for condonation of 98 days delay in preferring the present application for restoration. It is pertinent to note that no separate application for condonation of delay is preferred. However, the arguments are advanced on the aspect of delay also. Ladda 2 appw-144-10.doc 2. When the matter was taken before the earlier Bench (Shri D.G.Karnik,J) on 8th December,2009 none present for the petitioner when called. Hence, Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 2002 was dismissed for non prosecution. Belatedly, the present application for restoration was filed on 12th April, 2010. 3. During the arguments, it was considered to allow the present application for restoration on the condition that initially Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 2002 shall be immediately taken up for final hearing. It was agreed by the rival parties and as such independently Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 2002 was finally heard on the basis of written submissions filed by the rival parties and same is being disposed of by a separate order. 4. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration, same is allowed. The delay of 98 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. So also, the present application is allowed. Earlier dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 420 of 2002 is restored to the file. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)