*1* caw.318.11.wp.7239.99.906.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7239 OF 1999 Baburao Karbhari Darekar. ..Applicant/Petitioner -Versus- The Tahasildar, Niphad and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b P.N.Joshi, for the Applicant. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 02nd August, 2011. P.C.: 1 The registry has placed this matter because the Civil Application is moved by the Petitioner’s Advocate seeking to recall the order dated 24.10.2005 dismissing the Writ Petition as against the Respondent Nos.6(d) to 6(g) and 7. The Petitioner and the Advocate both state very fairly before this Court that they were not aware of such conditional order till the month of May, 2010. It is not clear as to how the heirs were brought on record without their addresses being proper. It is stated that the Petitioner and his Advocate will correct these state of affairs within such time as this Court may stipulate. 2 To my mind, the civil application, which is moved on 19.07.2010 to set aside the conditional order which has taken effect in November, 2005, is hopelessly barred by time. However, since the Advocate has taken responsibility for not confirming the status of the matter for nearly five years, the Petitioner should not suffer for this lapse. *2* caw.318.11.wp.7239.99.906.sxw In these circumstances, the Petitioner’s Advocate is given one final opportunity to comply with the office objections which shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. If the compliance is not reported, this petition will stand dismissed as against the unserved Respondents and no application for restoration of the Writ Petition as against them will be entertained by the registry. 3 The Civil Application is disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)