1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.A.G.Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.Pagare,learned counsel for respondent no.3 Counsel for remaining respondents absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2010 By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 10/08/2009, by which the contempt petition filed by the applicant bearing no.191/2008 was dismissed in default for non appearance of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondent no.3. On earlier occasion, the directions were given to file the affidavit of the earlier advocate, who was representing the applicant/petitioner, who handed over charge of the brief to the 2 present counsel. Today, the request is made that filing of this affidavit to be dispensed with. Request is accepted. The order is recalled and the filing of affidavit by the earlier counsel on record stands dispensed with. In view of the ratio as led down in the matter of Zenab Haidari versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 275, the issue is decided that if the contempt petition is dismissed in default in the inherent powers of this Court, the Court can set aside the order and restore the petition for being heard on merits. It is also observed in para no.2 of the said judgment that the Court to consider whether the order of dismissal to be set aside in view of the cause shown or explained by the party, seeking relief to set aside the order of dismissal. Grounds are mentioned in para no.2 and 3 of the application that the earlier counsel has handed over his brief to the present counsel, who as his name do not appear on the board, missed the track of the contempt 3 petition on the file of this Court, and did not attend the matter when called out and ultimately the contempt petition came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 made the statement that on that day, the counsel for petitioner was present in the Court, which fact is not disputed by the counsel for petitioner. But as his name do not appear on the board, he missed the track. The explanation offered in para no.2,3 and 4 of the application shows that there is sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for not attending the matter when called out and hence the order of dismissed in default was passed. As the sufficient cause is shown, this restoration application require to be allowed, but on payment of costs, hence order. 1. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause A & B and stands disposed of on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. 2. Payment of costs to be paid to the Library of Bar Association, Aurangabad. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/ca1678-10