1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1034 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2604 OF 2009 Deepak Pundlik Jagtap and anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.A.M.Joshi, for applicants. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.Suhas Deokar i/b.Mr.C.G.Gavnekar, for respondent nos.5 and 6. ......... CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13h APRIL, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent no.5 and 6. 2] This is an application for restoration of writ petition. Mr.Suhas Deokar, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 vehemently opposes the application on the ground that the Advocate for petitioners in writ petition was negligent and he should have been more vigilant on the relevant date. 3] Though we are agree with the learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 that the advocate for petitioners should have been more vigilant, in the interest of justice, we allow this application by restoring writ petition to the file. However, the petitioners in the writ petition are directed to pay the costs of Rs.1,000/- to the 1034-10.sxw 2 private respondents i.e. respondent nos.5 and 6. Such costs may be paid to the advocate appearing on behalf of the said respondents within one week from today. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 1034-10.sxw