1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7581 OF 2009 1 Gangadhar s/o Raghuji Khandode age 50 years, occ. agril. r/o Kharabi, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 2 Shivaji s/o Raghuji Khandode age 38 years, occ. agril r/o Kharabi, Tq. Hadgaon Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 Divisional Commissioner Divisional Commissioner Office Aurangabad. 2 Ganeshrao s/o Baburao Kadam age 48 years, occ. agril r/o Kharabi, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 3 Santosh s/o Ganeshrao Kadam age 22 years, occ. agril r/o Kharabi, TQ. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 4 Dadarao s/o Kishanrao Jadhav age 50 years, occ. agril r/o Pimpari (Bk), Tq. Kalamunri Dist. Hingoli. 5 Chandu s/o Sambhaji Jadhav age 45 years, occ. agril r/o Pimpari (Bk), Tq. Kalamunri Dist. Hingoli .. RESPONDENTS 2 Mrs. Maya R. Jamdhade, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. B.B. Gunjal, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 An application tendered to the Additional Commissioner praying for restoration of the revision application dismissed for want of prosecution, has been turned down in view of order passed on 11-5-2009. It transpires from record that the petitioners herein presented revision application raising challenge to the revenue entries recorded by the officials of the revenue department. Revision application was placed for hearing before the Additional Commissioner on 29-12-2008. However, as the counsel appearing for the revisional petitioner was not available, the matter came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is recorded in the order passed by the 3 Additional Commissioner that on four consecutive dates prescribed in the matter, counsel remained absent and as such there was no other alternative except dismissing the revision application. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that because of certain unavoidable circumstances the matter could not be prosecuted. The advocate was not in a position to cause his appearance on the dates prescribed in the matter. It is contended that considering the nature of difficulties, entitlement to the immovable property claimed by the parties and the dispute relating to recording of mutation entries in that regard, it will be desirable that the matter shall be decided on its own merit by the Additional Commissioner. For the lapses committed by the petitioners in their failure to diligently prosecute the litigation, the other party shall have to be compensated. In these circumstances, order passed by the Additional Commissioner needs to be set aside however, subject to condition in respect of payment of cost. 5 Petitioners herein shall deposit amount of cost of Rs.1,000/- or pay th same to the respondents within two weeks from today. Subject to condition in respect of payment of cost, order passed by the Additional Commissioner 4 on 11-5-2009 in case no. ROR/Rev/Pt/309/2006 shall stand quashed and set aside. Revision application tendered by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner stand restored to its original number. The Additional Commissioner shall deal with the application on its own merit and in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7581.09.odt