: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1199 OF 2009 Chander Anandrao Nagdev .. Appellant V/s. The Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation .. Respondents Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the judgment dated 7th August, 2008, by which the 1st Ah-Hoc District Judge, Kolhapur, has dismissed the Miscellaneous Civil Application No.35 of 2006 filed by the appellant for restoration of the Regular Civil Appeal No.376 of 1999. 2. It appears that the Regular Civil Appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed on 31st March, 2005. An application for restoration of the said Appeal was filed by the appellant and alongwith that application, an application for condoning the : 2 : delay of 115 days in presenting the application for restoration of the Appeal was also filed by the appellant. No reply was filed by the respondents. The delay was then condoned by the trial Court by its order dated 7th January, 2006. However, the restoration application was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not established with supporting evidence that the appellant was unable to attend the Court when the Regular Civil Appeal was dismissed. 3. This order is indeed surprising since the grounds in the application for condoning the delay and the application for restoration of the Civil Appeal were similar. The learned Judge by condoning the delay has accepted the case of the appellant that the constituted attorney of the appellant died on 12th April, 2000, that he was suffering from hyper tension for the last 10 years and that the appellant had not been informed of the death of his attorney. The Court has also accepted the fact that the appellant was suffering from hyper tension and had been advised rest for six months. : 3 : 4. These reasons were advanced by the appellant in the application for restoration as well. In my opinion, once the Court has accepted these reasons, as being sufficient to condone the delay, the Appellate Court should have restored the Regular Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant which was dismissed for default. The reasons given by the appellant, in my opinion, are sufficient and genuine and, therefore, the Appeal from Order is allowed. 5. The Regular Civil Appeal No.376 of 1999 is restored to file. 6. The Appeal from Order is disposed of. .......