1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.763 OF 2006 Ghanshyam Purushottam .. Applicant versus Ugrasen N. Punjabi .. Respondent Mr.K.K.V.Kurup for the applicant. Mr.AnilKumar Patil for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent tenders reply to this application in which it is stated that after the petition was dismissed, the decree which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition has been executed and the third party has been placed in possession. 2. The writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on account of non-renewal of office objections. It appears that this Court passed an order dated 14th March 2006 directing the applicant/petitioner to serve copies of the documents relied upon by the petitioner to the advocate for the respondent. A compliance was not made with the said order and therefore, 2 the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. 3. In view of the averments made in the application, a case is made out for restoration. Application is allowed. The writ petition is restored. However, the interim relief granted earlier is not restored. The writ petition shall be placed for admission on 24th September 2009. (A.S.OKA,J)