1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CA NO. 4545 OF 2008 IN MCA ST. NO. 8986/2008 IN WP NO. 5785/2005 (Ramrao Sadashiv Kambli vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 17, 2009. Heard Shri Bade, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Shri Walthare, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Bade, learned counsel for the applicant points out that the matter was entrusted to Shri Kheole, Advocate and he expired on 13.6.2006. The matter was listed on 13.07.2006 and was dismissed for want of prosecution. Vakalatnama of another advocate to represent the petitioner was filed on 14.7.2006. He states that in these circumstances, the fact of dismissal of writ petition did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner immediately and there is delay of 688 days. The learned AGP and Shri Walthare, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 are strongly opposing the prayer. Shri Walthare, learned counsel states that after writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, he had immediately informed his client by writing a letter and the fact of dismissal of writ petition was 2 communicated to the Additional District and Sessions Judge Court at Yavatmal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2005 on 25.07.2006. He states that the appellant was prosecuting that appeal diligently and was, therefore, aware of said application and of dismissal on 13.07.2006. According to him, the application for restoration filed belatedly is only an attempt to harass Respondent No.4. The fact shows that Shri Kheole, Advocate has expired and thereafter Vakalatnama of another advocate was filed on 14.07.2006. The matter was dismissed in the meanwhile on 13.07.2006. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant wanted to prosecute the matter further and in unfortunate circumstances, he could not do it. We do not find any malafides in the matter. We, therefore, grant the request made, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner to Respondent No.4 by 4th October 2009. If the costs are so paid, the office to restore Writ Petition No.5785 of 2005 and place it for admission before the appropriate Bench JUDGE JUDGE *GS.