1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1025 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 1998 Anant Sahadeo Gurao ...Applicant vs 1. Sakharam Dhondu Gurao & ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.V. Palsuledesai for the applicant. None for the respondents. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondents. The application is filed for restoration of the earlier Civil Application No.1025 of 2005. There is delay of four years, five months and twenty-six days in filing of the application. According to the applicant, Civil Application No. 1025 of 2005 was filed for substitution of the legal 2 representatives of the deceased respondent No.10 on record. There was yet another application bearing Civil Application No. 1026 of 2005 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.8 on record. The applicant states that the date fixed in the matter was not known to him and his advocate inadvertently could not notice the date fixed on the board. He states that the absence was without any intention. Hence he seeks codonation of delay for restoration of Civil Application No.1025 of 2005. 2. It appears that the delay was unintentional and perhaps because of the fact that there were two different applications, and the advocate could not notice that application No.1025 of 2005 was enlisted for hearing. Hence the delay is condoned by accepting the explanation and Civil Application No.1025 of 2005 is restored to its original position. 3. Civil Application is, accordingly, allowed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)