SSK/907 1 caw.1998.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1998 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 1992 Balu Dattu Ingale (Since Deceased) by Legal Heirs -Smt. Akkatai Balasaheb Ingale & Ors. ....Applicants/Petitioners Versus Gangadhar Govind Chinchankar (Since Deceased) by Legal Heirs- Vaibhav Gangadhar Chinchankar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Pradeep S. Gole, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. Vaibhav Gangadhar Chinchankar – Respondent No.1a is present in person. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Gole, learned counsel for the applicants and respondent no.1A in person. None appears for rest of the respondents though served and affidavit of service to that effect is filed. 2. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 28th June, 2010 as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In Paragraph VI, the applicants have given explanation that Mr. Haribhau Gole, Advocate who was appearing for them retired from practice, and therefore, nobody SSK/907 2 caw.1998.11 appeared on their behalf on that day. The applicants have also explained the delay which occurred in filing the civil application in Paragraph Nos. IV, V & VI. The applicants should not be punished for the fault of their advocate. The approach of the Court should be liberal in condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.)