1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRA No. 25/2010 Balaji s/o Shayamrao Kamble Vs The Bank of India and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms. Kirti Satpute, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. A.T.Purohit, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th JUNE 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties extensively. 2. Dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 27/2002 on 13.3.2007 for want of prosecution resulted in making restoration application bearing no. MJC 13/2009 before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, who restored the same by his order dated 30.12.2009, saddling costs of Rs. one thousand to the bank payable to the defendant. This order of restoration is questioned by the defendant. 3. Several contentions are raised by the counsel for the applicant (defendant), one of them is, the ground for restoration in the petition is not, in tune, with the fact that has happened or occurred on 13.3.2007 as an application was moved by learned counsel representing the plaintiff bank that he has gone to Gadchiroli for his 2 urgent work and unable to take evidence and sought accommodation from the Court. The learned Judge observed that “the suit is old, the plaintiff had already sought adjournment vide Exh17,18,24 25 and 26 during the trial. Rorznama shows that the matter was kept for settlement. No cogent reason was shown to justify six adjournments. Hence, the application was rejected.” By the subsequent order, learned Judge has observed that “the plaintiff and witness are absent though the matter was called from time to time. Hence, the suit stands dismissed in default.” 4. It is pointed and not disputed that the plaintiff witnesses Shri Madhukar could not make his attendance as he was required to leave in between bus stand as he suffered dysentery and required to attend medical practitioner. The Medical Practitioner was also examined, who supported evidence of PW 1 Madhukar and also issuance of certificate (Ex. 35). 5. The fact remains that in the application dated 13.3.2007, the counsel communicated that he has left for 3 Gadchiroli. In a natural sequel, the counsel could not be aware whether the witness, who was on the way would be abstaining. 6. The reasons assigned for restoration were found by the learned Judge. The order of restoration, does not smack of any illegally or irregularity requiring interference in terms of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Judge rightly passed the order of restoration. C.R.A. lacks of merit. It is dismissed. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.