1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No. 20 of 2010 (Kazi Karimuddin Kazi Faiyazuddin ...VERSUS... Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.A.Bari, Advocate for the Appellant None for the respondents. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 03rd March, 2010. This appeal from order challenges the order dated 5th November, 2008 by which the District Court Wardha dismissed the application filed by the appellant for restoration of trust appeal i.e. Misc. Civil Appeal No.2 of 1997 by setting aside the order of its dismissal dated 23rd February, 2007. The explanation given by the appellant for his absence in the Court in the application for restoration was that on 23rd February, 2007 the appellant was absent on account of illness of his mother and the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant was absent as he was busy elsewhere. The learned District Judge while considering the application for restoration noted that after the appeal was fixed for final hearing on 7th October, 2005, the appellant did not remain present on several dates. From 18th November, 2006 onwards, the appellant and his Advocate were absent consistently. For this absence, the application offers no explanation 2 whatsoever. The learned District Judge has noted that dismissal of the first appeal was not on account of absence on one date alone, but it was dismissed because of deliberate inaction as well as gross negligence on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal. He further observed that the application made was not bona fide and that there is nothing to show that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearings. Perusal of the proceedings confirms observations of learned District Judge. No interference in the same is called for. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale