IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2718 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10528 OF 2004 Khairunbi Sahebji Ambi ...Applicant V/s. Hayatabi Ibrahim Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Amit B.Borkar for Applicant. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The fact that contesting Respondents were represented by Advocate Mr.Rajure did not absolve the Applicant to serve the remaining Respondents. If the Applicant so desired, should have deleted the names of other Respondents from the array of the parties. It is in that context, the : 2 : conditional order has become applicable to the present case and the Writ Petition stood dismissed. 3. Significantly, present Application is filed after two years from the date on which conditional order became operational. The explanation offered for such long delay is unacceptable. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the Advocate, the Application is allowed in the interest of justice in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c), on condition that the Advocate on record for the Applicant shall personally pay cost quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) to High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today, failing which, the Office to proceed on the assumption that the earlier order stands revived without further reference to the Court. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.