1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9799 OF 2003 Anand Lakhu Dhangar & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Shanu Appa Dhangar .. Respondent Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr.N.J.Patil for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th January 2010. P.C: . On 15th October 2009 this Court passed an order directing that writ petition shall be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. On 29th October 1999, a suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non prosecution. On the same day, an application for restoration of the suit was made by the petitioners. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the said order which has been dismissed by the District Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that application for restoration of the suit was made on the same day on which the same was dismissed for non prosecution as the petitioners were absent. He 2 submitted that in the circumstances, the Courts below ought to have passed the order of restoration. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to roznama of the proceedings and submitted that repeatedly opportunities were granted to the petitioners by the trial Court. However, the petitioners were repeatedly absent. He pointed out that the suit is of the year 1989 and the petitioners have prolonged the suit by persistently remaining absent. He, therefore, submitted that the Courts below were justified in not interfering with the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The roznama of the suit annexed to the petition shows that the suit was repeatedly adjourned as the Court was busy with other matters. It is true that on some of the dates the petitioners have remained absent. However, the fact remains that on number of dates when the petitioners and the respondent were present, the trial Court could not take up the suit for various reasons set out in the roznama. 6. The application for restoration of the suit was made on the same day. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of P.D.Shamdasani vs. The Central Bank of India Ltd (XL Bombay Law Reporter 238). As the application for restoration was made on the same day on which the suit was dismissed, unless it was a case of gross carelessness or gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, in normal course, suit ought to have been restored. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the 3 case of Sanjay Dagadappa Kapse vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2009 (5) Maharashtra Law Journal 900]. 7. Perusal of the roznama shows that though the petitioners may have remained absent on some of the dates, this was not a case where there was a gross carelessness or gross negligence on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, this was a case where the Court ought to have restored the suit by ordering the petitioners to pay costs to the respondents. 8. As far as this petition is concerned, the amount of costs is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that there is no interim relief operating in favour of the petitioners in the suit. The suit is of the year 1989. Therefore, the suit deserves to be disposed of expeditiously. The petitioners will have to co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. 9. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside and Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 1989 is restored to the file of the trial Court subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. (b) Deposit of the amount of costs with the trial Court will be treated as 4 sufficient compliance. (c) Hearing of the suit is expedited and trial Court will endeavour to decide the suit on or before 30th June 2010. (d) The petitioners are directed to co-operate with the learned trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the suit. (e) The petitioners will not seek adjournment on any unreasonable ground. (f) Writ petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)