CAW. 624-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 624 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2314 OF 1995 Nanakchand S. Agrawal (since deceased, represented through LRs.) & Anr. ...Applicants Vs. Katya Maruti Lambe Hanuman Mandir Trust & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. R. A. Thorat, for the Applicants. Ms. Sana Yusuf Bangwala i/b S. M. Gorwadkar, for Respondent No.1. Mr. V. V. Salunke, for Respondent No.1 in WP No. 2314/1995. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 15, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. This application is filed for recalling the order dated 15th October, 1997 and restoring the writ petition to the file. By the said order, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioners to take steps regarding respondent Nos. 2 and 3; four weeks time was granted for that purpose and it was observed that if no steps are taken, writ petition shall CAW. 624-11 - 2 - stand dismissed without reference to the Court. The Assistant Registrar also has made a note of this fact by his order dated 14th October, 2006, which reads as under- “Note : As per Court’s order passed on 15/10/97, Advocate for the Petitioner has not taken any steps regarding Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, order stands and Writ Petition disposed of/stands dismissed.” 2. The Civil Application is filed for recalling the said order. It is submitted that the applicants became aware of dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2008. They did not approach for restoration since they were under the bona fide belief that the execution proceedings would be dropped in view of the execution of the document dated 28th January, 1995. It is further submitted that since they are prosecuting the remedies in the executing Court, the delay is caused in filing the Civil Application for the restoration. In my view, said explanation which is given by the applicant cannot be said to be a sufficient explanation for condoning the delay of almost thirteen years and six months, in filing this application. Though the applicants were aware about dismissal of the order in 2008, no further steps were taken. The applicants were also not diligent in finding out as to what happened to their writ petition after CAW. 624-11 - 3 - 1997. In the application it is also mentioned that the applicants did not communicate with their advocate and did not instruct their advocate. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are not contesting parties. The applicant, therefore, were not diligent in pursuing this application. Hence, the civil application for restoration is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]