IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5653 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.5653 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.5653 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.994 OF 1996. APPEAL NO.994 OF 1996. APPEAL NO.994 OF 1996. Shri Rafique Ahmed S. Ahmed & Anr. ...Appellants. Versus Abdul Karim Liacat Ali Shaikh ...Respondent. Ms Urmila K. Sanil for the Appellants. Shri M.B.Kotak for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 07th January, 2008. : 07th January, 2008. : 07th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocate appearing for the applicants. The first applicant is the opposite party in a claim petition filed before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The second appellant is the insurer. The applicants are appellants in the first appeal. The challenge in the First Appeal is to judgment and order dated 09th April, 1996 where compensation awarded is in the sum of Rs.14,779.50/-. The appeal was admitted. 2. On 09th August, 1996 stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order was granted in favour of the applicants. On 25th February, 2002 this Court directed the applicants/appellants to file paper-book within a period of three weeks from that day. Thus, the paper-book was required to be filed by March 2002. On ... 2 ... 05th April, 2003 this Court vacated the stay on the ground that order dated 25th February, 2002 was not complied with by the applicants. 3. The contention of the learned advocate for the applicants is that the order dated 05th April, 2003 was obtained by the respondent’s advocate without observing the rules of natural justice. It is submitted that the said order was snatched behind the back of the applicants. 4. The said contentions cannot be accepted. The appeal was regularly listed on board on 05th April, 2003 when the order was passed by this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the advocate for respondent obtained order from this Court behind the back of the applicants. The averments made in the application show that the advocate for applicants was absent not because of circumstances beyond his control but the application itself discloses that the advocate was absent as he was attending a District Court. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects and considering fact that amount of compensation is only Rs.14,779.50/-, no case is made out for recalling the order dated 05th April, 2003. Accordingly, application is rejected. It is however made clear that withdrawal of the compensation amount by the respondent will be subject to final outcome of the ... 3 ... appeal. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE