1 CAC-525.11&526.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.525 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2011 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner & Anr. : Applicants. Versus Shree Swaminarayan Sanskruti Seva Trust Through their Power of Attorney Holder Shri Praful Chimanlal Motta : Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.526 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2011 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner & Anr. : Applicants. Versus Shree Swaminarayan Sanskruti Seva Trust Through their Power of Attorney Holder Shri Praful Chimanlal Motta : Respondent. Mr. A A Kumbhakoni i/by Mr. A S Rao for the Applicants. Mr. Ram Upadhyay for the Respondent. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 30th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Civil Applications have been filed by the Applicants/Original Petitioners for restoration of the above Civil Revision Applications which have been dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 21/07/2011 on account of the non-removal of the office objection in so far as service on the Respondent-Trust is concerned. 2 CAC-525.11&526.11.sxw 2 It is required to be noted that prior to dismissal of the above Civil Revision Applications, the Respondent-Trust in fact had filed its affidavit in reply in both the Civil Revision Applications, however, the vakalatnama of the concerned advocate was not filed. Since the said fact of filing of the affidavit in reply was not to the knowledge of the Applicants, in view of the fact that the copy of the said reply was not served upon them, the same could not be pointed out to this Court and therefore this Court was unaware of the said fact. In the Civil Applications the factum as to when knowledge of the dismissal was acquired by the Applicants has been mentioned. In my view, the same would have no relevance in the context of the fact that the Respondent-Trust had already filed its affidavit in reply, and was therefore being represented in Court through an advocate, the office objection therefore in so far as service on the Respondent was erroneous. 3 The learned counsel for the Respondent-Trust seeks to vehemently oppose the Applications for restoration and for condonation of delay of about 51 days in filing the above Applications for restoration, by contending that no sufficient cause has been shown by the Applicants. 4 Since the above Civil Revision Applications have been dismissed on the ground of non-removal of office objection, and since it is trite that a party should be allowed to prosecute the proceedings on merits rather than it being thrown out on technicalities. The objections, if any, apart from they 3 CAC-525.11&526.11.sxw being misconceived, in the light of filing of the affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondent-Trust, are not sustainable. The delay in filing the above Civil Applications is accordingly condoned. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of the above Civil Revision Applications on account of the conditional order dated 21/7/2011 is set aside. The above Civil Applications are allowed and resultantly the above Civil Revision Applications are restored to file. Put the above Civil Revision Applications for admission on 16/12/2011. The above Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]