1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2009 IN FERA APPEAL NO.47 OF 2008 Jairaj Vallabhdas Java .. Applicant versus Union of India .. Respondent ... Mr.M.S. Kumtekar for the applicant. Mr. K.R. Choudhari with R.F. Lambay and Ms.Zora Shaikh for respondent. CORAM : FI. REBELLO AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 30th th July 2009. P.C:- 1. By this application, the applicant prays for setting aside of the order dated 9th September 2008 passed by this court dismissing FERA Appeal no. 47 of 2008 filed by the petitioners in default of appearance. 2 2. The petitioner’s appeal bearing FERA Appeal no.47 of 2008 came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 29th September 2008. Petitioner and his advocate were absent when called. The Division Bench therefore dismissed the appeal for non appearance of the applicant. The present application has been taken out for setting aside of that order and restoration of the appeal to file. 3. The application is clearly barred by limitation. The order of dismissal was passed on 29th September 2008 and the present application is filed on 22nd July 2009. The application was required to be made within 30 days and it has not been done. The delay is sought to be explained in paragraph no.5 of the application stating that the applicant was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal and he became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only after he received a notice from Enforcement Directorate demanding the amount of penalty. The applicant has further states that on receipt of the notice, he contacted his advocate who gave evasive replies and did not provide a copy of the order of this court dated 29th September 2009. The applicant therefore took search on the website of the court and learnt that the appeal was dismissed. 4. Not only direct allegations have been made not only about the negligence on the advocate not attending the matter on due date but also about his further conduct in evading to reply to the applicant when he made 3 inquiries about the appeal. The concerned advocate, however, has not been joined as a party and the present application has been filed through another advocate. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been made out by the applicant for his absence on 29th September 2008 as also for the delay in making the present application. After having heard the counsel at length, we are left with an impression that the applicant wanted to avoid the previous Division Bench. He allowed the matter to be dismissed and made the application for restoration only after the roster changed. Forum Shopping cannot be allowed. If there was really any fault on the part of the previous advocate in not attending the matter which was compounded by evading to give reply the applicant contacted him, the applicant ought to have joined that advocate as a party to the application who had to be given an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him. This has not been done probably because the facts are otherwise. 6. In any event, we are not satisfied about the correctness and sufficiency of the reasons given for restoration and the delay. Application is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J)