1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 879 OF 2009 Vishnu Namdeo Savant & ors. ... Appellants v/s Jagannath Pandurang Savant/ Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M.Kamble for the appellants. Mr.Praful Patil for respondent Nos.1 and 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appeal from order has been preferred against the order passed by the appellate Court on 29.11.2008. By this order, the appellate Court has refused to restore the appeal which was dismissed for not depositing the amount with the Court, in the appeal. 2. The reason given by the appellants herein for not 2 depositing the amount is that a private paper book was to be filed and therefore the amount required for the paper book was not deposited. 3. The appellate Court has held that sufficient reasons have not been mentioned in the application for condoning the delay. It also did not accept the contention that the appeal should be restored since the applicant No.2 was a practicing advocate. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants herein that appellant No.2 is appearing in person in the appellate Court and is also representing the appellant Nos.1 and 3. He was not able to remain present in Court on the date when the appeal was taken up for hearing because of his professional engagements in various Courts. In these circumstances, submits the learned advocate for the appellants, the appeal has been dismissed. 5. The paper book was to be filed in the appeal which was preferred on 15.10.2007. An amount of Rs.300/- was directed to be deposited. The amount was not deposited though the matter was adjourned in order to enable the appellants to deposit the amount. The Court finally dismissed the appeal on 21.9.2008 when the appellant No.2 3 was not present. 6. After hearing the advocates for the parties, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order as sufficient reasons have been given for the non- appearance of the appellants. Obviously, appellant Nos.1 and 3 relied on appellant No.2 to attend the matter. Appellant No.2 was engaged in other matters professionally on 23.9.2008 and, therefore, could not attend the Court. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the order must be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.2008 is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. 8. The appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 9. The costs for the paper book shall be deposited in the lower Appellate Court within two weeks from today. ..... 4