rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1834 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1834 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1834 OF 2008 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1996 SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1996 SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1996 Balkrishna Raghunath Dharmadhikari & Ors. .. Applicants Vs. Nandan Ganpatrao Hawaldar .. Respondent Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the Applicants. Mr.M.V.Singade h/f. Mr.G.N.Salunke for Respondent. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This application is moved by the Appellants for setting aside the order dated 11th November, 2008 and for restoration of the Second Appeal. 2. The Appeal came to be dismissed in default by the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants states that when the case was called out on 11th November, 2008, it is stated in the restoration application, that the name of the counsel was not correctly shown on the Board and the name of the Advocate was shown as A.P.Kulkarni instead of ( 2 ) A.M.Kulkarni. On account of the said mistake, it is submitted that the counsel could not attend the case when it was called out. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that this has not been the first time the matter was dismissed and then restored, but the same was dismissed earlier as well and came to be restored. It is also submitted that it was on account of the circulation of the Second Appeal obtained by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the matter was listed before the Court. There is substance in the submission that the counsel could not appear on account of a mistake in his name as published in the daily Board. Without going into the rival submission, in the interest of justice Appeal needs to be restored. However, the Respondents could be compensated for the inconvenience caused. 3. In the result, the Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 11th November, 2008 is quashed and set aside, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the Appellants to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from today. (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.)