1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.687 OF 2009 Salim Alimahomed Porbanderwalla .Applicant V/s. Amirali Alimahomed Porbanderwalla .Respondents & ors Mr.Naushad Engineer i/b. Narayanan and Narayanan, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Atul G. Damle, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai on 6th August, 2009 on Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2008, whereby he set aside the order dismissing the suit passed on 17th November, 2008 and restored it on payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-. 2 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant is right in submitting that reasons given by the learned Judge in paragraph five of his order are grossly inadequate for restoring the suit to the file. The learned Judge has observed that the Applicant had not filed an Affidavit of Advocate Kamra, who had remained absent on account of his personal difficulties. The learned Counsel for the Applicant is right in submitting that the Applicant himself had personal difficulties and on account of those difficulties he could not remain present and so the suit was dismissed. The learned Judge has stated that considering the facts & circumstances on record and to meet ends of justice he found that Application ought to be allowed. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, at least on three consecutive 3 occasions i. e. on 8th October, 2008, 4th November, 2008 and 29th August, 2008 the matter was adjourned at the instance of the Plaintiff. On 4th November, 2008, adjournment was granted by way of last chance and on 17th November, 2008, Plaintiff and his Advocate remained absent. 4. However, now, the learned Counsel for the Respondents states that an Affidavit of the Plaintiff has already been filed and since the suit is between brothers in respect of immovable property, it would be appropriate if the parties fight their matter on merits rather than have it decided by default. Yet, since it is the lapse on the part of the Plaintiff which has led the Applicant to approach this Court and incur expenses I would enhance the costs imposed by Rs.10,000/-. 5. Civil Revision Application is disposed of. The impugned order is modified and cost 4 imposed by the learned Trial Judge is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Respondents to the Applicant within a period of one week of communication of the order. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)