1 IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 635 & 788 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 640 OF 1998 Narayan Shankar Shilimkar ..... Applicant Vs. Bhiku Sitaram Chavan & anr ..... Respondents Ms. Kavita Pawar i/b. Sanjay Kshirsagar Adv. For the applicant Mr. V.B. Konda Deshmukh For the respondent. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 9th July, 2010. Not on Board. Mentioned. P.C. : 1. This application is for bringing heirs and legal representatives of respondent no.2 Namdev Sitaram Chavan, since deceased on record. Respondent no.2 Namdev S. Chavan died on 21-4-2010. The present application is filed on 14-2-2010 which is in time. Hence civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. The applicant shall carry out the amendment within two weeks from today. In C.A. 635/2010 2 1. This application is for recalling of order dated 12-11-2008 thereby restoring S.A. No.640/98 after condoning the delay in filing the application. 2. S.A..640/98 was admitted after hearing both the sides. Pursuant to the order dated 19-11-2007 Second Appeal was listed for final hearing. When the matter was called out on 12-11-2008 none was present from either side and the appeal was dismissed in default. 3. In para 2 of the application it is averred that advocate of the applicant through oversight did not notice the matter and due to this the matter remained unattended. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent straneously objected to the said application on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out and there is huge delay in filing the application. 5. As stated above, after hearing both sides, the Second Appeal was admitted as it raised substantial question of law. When the matter was called on 12-11-2008 none appeared for both the sides and the Second Appeal was dismissed in default. If the Second Appeal is restored, at the highest the same will be decided on merit and if C.A. is not allowed, the S.A. will stand dismissed on technical ground. The respondents are in 3 possession of the property in dispute and no interim order is operating against them. In view of this, in order to do substantial justice between the parties, the civil application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. In view of the earlier order dated 19-11-2007, list the Second Appeal for final hearing in the week commencing from 26 th July 2010. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]