-1- 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.5635 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.5635 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.5635 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.21794 OF 2002 APPEAL ST.NO.21794 OF 2002 APPEAL ST.NO.21794 OF 2002 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Applicant vs. M/s.Arco Micaver Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.J.J.Xavier for the Applicant Mr.S.C.Naidu for the Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 11,2008. : JANUARY 11,2008. : JANUARY 11,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant and the Advocate for the Respondent. The First Appeal preferred by the Applicant has been dismissed for non removal of office objections on the basis of conditional order dated 19th August 2003. 2. Application is opposed by the counsel for the Respondent by pointing out that there is absolutely no explanation for delay of 725 days. He has invited my attention to various proceedings taken out by the Respondent on the basis of order impugned in the First Appeal before the Small Causes Court. His submission is that at no point of time the Applicant-Corporation disclosed before the Small Causes Court that an Appeal has been preferred by the Applicant before this Court in the year 2002. He submitted that now the Small Causes Court has passed an order which has the effect of implementation of the impugned order and therefore serious prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if the Appeal is restored. He submitted that the Application is devoid of substance and there is no explanation for delay. He placed reliance on communications dated 25th August 2002, 30th August -2- 2002 and 8th July 2002 which according to him show that the Applicant had decided to implement the decision of the Small Causes Court. 3. The said communications may have relevance as and when the application for condonation of delay is placed before the Court which was dismissed for non removal of office objections. The contentions which are raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent regarding willingness shown by the Applicant to implement the impugned order can be considered when the application for condonation of delay is considered on merits. 4. The Appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution on account of default on the part of the Advocate for the Applicant. There was failure to remove office objections. A case for restoration is made out. However, the Respondent will have to be compensated by payment of costs. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to following conditions : a) The Applicant will remove office objections within a period of six weeks from today failing which order of dismissal will stand. b) The Applicant will pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the Respondent within a period of six weeks from today. Deposit of the said amount in this court will be treated as sufficient compliance with this order. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE