201mca38.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2010 in Second Appeal No.111 of 1998 (D) (Namdeo s/o. Sheshrao Sapkal and anr. vs. Sau. Suryakantabai w/o. Namdeorao Sapkal) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : January 20, 2010 Heard Mr. S. S. Doifode, Adv. for applicants and Mr.Yadav, Adv. holding for Mr. K.R.Lambat, Adv. for respondent. The instant Misc. Civil Application is for restoration of Second Appeal No.111 of 1998, which was dismissed in default by this Court on 30.11.2009 on the ground that none was present for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to paragraph no.4 of the Civil Application, which is re- produced below : “ It is submitted that due to over-sight said matter was missed to see from the cause list by the Counsel of the Appellants/Applicants, therefore, Counsel for the Appellants could not appear before the Hon’ble Court for final hearing. That, due to bona fide mistake and due to inadvertently said matter was missed to see from the cause list, that said things happened due to bona fide mistake of the Counsel, therefore, he could not attend the said case for final hearing as such it is happened due to bona fide mistake and 201mca38.10.odt 2 . there is no any deliberate mistake on the part of the Counsel of the appellants. “ In support of the afore-said averments, the learned Counsel has filed his own affidavit. Mr. Yadav, Adv. holding for Mr. K. R. Lambat, Adv. for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application and has urged that the reason putforth, which is re-produced above in the application, is not true and correct. According to him, the learned Counsel for the appellant was aware of listing of the matter. The contents appearing in the aforesaid paragraph of the application have not been controverted by filing reply. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that a case is made out for restoration of this application and I do not find substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Hence, the order dismissing the matter in default passed on 30.11.2009 is re-called and Second Appeal No.111 of 1998 is restored to the file of this Court. The Misc. Civil Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE jais 201mca38.10.odt 3 .