CAW/2865/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2685 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 1999 The General Secretary, Mahatma Phule Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Ranjana Rangarao Nalawade & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. B.R. Patil for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Pakle for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 9 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Civil Application has been filed for recalling the Judgement and Order passed by me on 2nd July, 2010. It is contended in the Civil Application that despite a caveat being filed by the applicants on 8th March, 1999, the appearance of the Advocate for the applicants was not shown on the board on 2nd July, 2010, when the Writ Petition No.1819 of 1999 was heard and disposed of. It is, therefore, contended that the applicants had no notice that the Writ Petition had been listed on the board for final hearing. 2. The Civil Application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Pakale on behalf of respondent No.1. He submits that no vakalatnama was filed and, therefore, the appearance of the Advocate for the applicants was not shown on the board. According to him, therefore, it is not necessary to recall the order. CAW/2865/2010 2 3. On verification, the Registry has found that a caveat was filed on 8th March, 1999 by Advocate Mr. B.R. Patil. Obviously, therefore, the vakalatnama would have been filed along with the caveat as per the Appellate Side Rules. A notice has been issued on 31st March, 1999 to the learned Advocate Mr. B.R. Patil by Mr. Pakale, who appears for respondent No.1 herein (the original petitioner), serving him a copy of the Writ Petition and informing him of the date on which the Writ Petition would be heard for admission. On 6th April, 1999, when the Writ Petition was heard for admission, the appearance of Mr. B.R. Patil was shown for original respondent No.1. 4. In these circumstances, it is apparent that a Vakalatnama had been filed by Mr. B.R. Patil on behalf of the applicant­original respondent No.1. Unfortunately, however, the appearance of Mr. B.R. Patil, the learned Advocate for original respondent No.1, was not shown on the final hearing board on 2nd July, 2010 and, therefore, the applicants herein were unrepresented on that day. 5. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Civil Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 6. List the Writ Petition No.1819 of 1999 on the board for final hearing on 14th January, 2011. CAW/2865/2010 3 7. The Civil Application is disposed of.