1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2008 M.K. Khanolkar ........appellant/Applicant versus S.T. Pednekar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. G. V. Limaye adv. for the Applicant Mr. A.G. Kundekar adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 3rd MARCH, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The appeal is admitted touching the following substantial questions of law. i) Whether the Appellate Court was right in dismissing the applicant's entire counter claim, without filing the appeal or cross objection by the respondents/plaintiffs against the partly decreed counter claim by the Civil Judge Junior Division Sangola was legal and valid ? ii) Whether Appellate Court was right in holding that after adoption the appellant has no vested right in property in their natural family under section 12(b) of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act ? (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2008 M.K. Khanolkar ........Applicant versus S.T. Pednekar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. G. V. Limaye adv. for the Applicant Mr. A.G. Kundekar adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 3rd MARCH, 2009. P.C.: 1. By the present application the applicant seeks restoration of the appeal which came to be dismissed on account of absence of the advocate when the matter was called out. Perused the application. The reason for the absence of the counsel as stated in the application is that the cousel could not return to Bombay and could not attend the matter as he was out of station. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands restored to file. Application is disposed of. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)