1 11 rpf.12.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 12 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2008 Dr. (Mrs.) Jigna Dinesh Bhatt and ors. ... Petitioners Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. ... Respondents ------ Mrs. S.V. Sonavane, AGP for the Petitioners. Mrs. Arati B. Barve for Respondent No.1. ------ CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 11 th August, 2010. P.C. 1 The explanation offered for non-appearance when the matter was proceeded for hearing is unacceptable. No explanation is offered as to what prevented any colleague of the advocate on record for the Petitioners to inform the Court when the matter was called and proceeded. The matter was heard at length. After hearing of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company detailed twelve pages order came to be passed, which presupposes that sufficient Court’s time has been consumed for hearing of the matter. The explanation is offered 2 11 rpf.12.10 in the communication at page No. 59 merely suggests that the advocate on record suddenly took ill on account of vertigo and blood pressure problems. The fact remains that no mentioning was made before us when the matter was called out and resultantly, the matter proceeded for hearing. Such explanation cannot be countenanced. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, in the interest of justice, application is allowed on condition that the advocate on record for the Petitioner shall personally pay costs quantified at Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Legal Service Authority within one week from today, failing which the earlier order shall stand and the office shall treat this application as having been dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. If payment is made in time, the restored appeal be proceeded for hearing as per its turn. 2 Application disposed of on the above term. [ A.A. SAYED, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]