1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.699 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.95 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO.932 OF 1979 M/s.Shah and Nahar Associates. ...Appellant vs. 1.Gujarat Saving Unit Pvt.Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.S.Dastur i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co., for Appellant. None for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 2nd March,2009. 2 P.C.:- 1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion no.95 of 2004. That notice of motion was taken out by the plaintiff for restoration of suit no.932 of 1979 which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit came to be dismissed by order dated 10.10.2003. The suit was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to pay cost of Rs.5000/- which was imposed on the plaintiff by the Court. It appears from the record that the amount of cost was really paid by the Advocate appearing for plaintiff but by mistake a different number of proceeding was mentioned. It appears that it was the bonafide mistake committed by the lawyer. 2. In our opinion, considering that the suit involves substantial property rights of the plaintiff, the suit deserves to be restored. The plaintiff needs to be given an opportunity to prosecute the suit. The respondents are not appearing 3 though they are served. 3. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10.9.2004 passed in Notice of Motion no.95 of 2004 is set aside. That notice of motion is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). The suit is restored. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---