1 ca548.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 548 of 2010 IN Civil Revision Application (ST) No. 26134 of 2010 Mathuradas Morarji & ors. ...Applicant v/s. Pravin Moreshwar Desai ...Respondent Mr. P.S. Dani for the applicant. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- JANUARY 24, 2011. P.C. Respondent has been duly served. None appears for the Respondents. 2. This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision Application. However, the ground stated in the Application is that after the memo of revision Application was duly affirmed by the Applicant No. 1 who is the trustee of Applicant No.2 and when it was sought to be 2 ca548.10.sxw handed over to the Clerk of the Counsel for the Appellant, the said Clerk was not available and as such it was handed over to some other clerk. It is stated that the Applicants were under bonafide impression that it would have been filed. However, since the Applicants did not hear about anything, they enquired with the Counsel and at that time mistake committed by the clerk of the Counsel came to the notice. 3. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed opposing the Application. The contentions raised are denied. No doubt that there is considerable delay in filing the revision application. However, it could be seen that delay has occasioned on account of lapse committed by the clerk of the Counsel. Litigant should not be made to suffer on part of Counsel for the Applicant. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the Application. Insofar as the hardship caused to the Respondent is concerned, the same can be compensated by imposing cost. 4. The Civil Application is, therefore, allowed. Delay is condoned, however, shall be subject to cost which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The cost be paid by a cross cheque in favour of Shri Pravin M. Desai – the non- applicant who is personally present in the Court. The cost be paid within a 3 ca548.10.sxw period of three weeks from today. 5. On deposit of the cost, the Respondent-non-plaintiff would be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B.R. GAVAI, J)