-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1468 OF 2008 Mrs. Manjula Pandharinath Taware : Appellant v/s Mr. Pandharinath Kashinath Taware & ors : Respondents Mr. V.H. Shinde advocate for appellant Mr. P.M. Pradhan advocate for respondent no.1 Ms. San Y. Nangwala i/b S.M. Gorwadkar for respondent no. 1 and 2 Coram : S.P. Davare, J. Date : 11.2.2009 P.C. . Perused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 and 2. The learned counsel for petitioner made statement that the petitioner does not claim any relief against the respondent no. 3 in the present application as well as in CA no. 1011/2008 if restored to file and said statement is accepted and taken on record. . By the present application, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order of dismissal dt. 10.11.2008 dismissing CA 1011/08 by this court. According to the petitioner, the civil application 1011/08 was fixed on 3.10.2008 and the advocate for the applicant was present in court upto 2 p.m. but the matter did not reach and same was far behind on -2- the board, hence thinking that matter would not reach on the same day, the advocate for the petitioner left the court for other urgent commitments in afternoon session on the said date. Hence on 6.10.2008 the applicant’s advocate checked the status of the matter on internet and found that it was adjourned to 10.11.2008 but there was no mention of any order passed therein. Infact, conditional order was passed on 3.10.2008 and applicant’s advocate was unaware about the said conditional order. On 9.11.2008 the office note regarding the said order was seen on the internet further showing that the above matter was listed on 11.11.2008 instead of 10.11.2008. However the said matter did not appear on the board on 11.11.2008 therefore the applicant’s advocate made inquiry in the office and found that the matter was dismissed for default in accordance with the conditional order dt. 3.10.2008 on 10.11.2008. . The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the absence of the applicant on 10.11.2008 was not intentional and if default occurred it is due to sheer inadvertence. Hence the applicant prayed that the dismissal order dt. 10.11.2008 be set aside and CA 1011/08 be restored to file. -3- . In view of the foregoing facts, it appears that the applicant’s absence before the court on 10.11.2008 was not intentional and he remained absent on the said date due to inadvertence. Hence the interest of justice requires that dismissal order dt. 10.11.2008 dismissing CA 1011/08 be set aside and CA 1011/08 be restored to file. . Besides, present application has been preferred by the applicant immediately on 14.11.2008 and therefore it is within the period of limitation. . In the circumstances present application stands allowed and the order dt. 10.11.2008 dismissing CA 1011/08 set aside and CA 1011/08 stands restored to file. CA 1011/08 be fixed after two weeks for admission and present CA stands disposed of accordingly. (S.P. Davare,J)