1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2807 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2005 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2002 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2599 OF 2000 IN SUIT NO. 3625 OF 2000 Yatindra Shankar Karnik .. Appellant. Vs. Shantiniketan (Air-India) Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., & Ors. .. Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2864 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 791 OF 2004 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2002 2 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2599 OF 2000 IN SUIT NO. 3625 OF 2000 Ulhas Sadanand Warty .. Appellant. Vs. Shantiniketan (Air-India) Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., & Ors. .. Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3016 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 834 OF 2004 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2002 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2599 OF 2000 IN SUIT NO. 3625 OF 2000 Sanjiv Shambhau Sen & Anr.. .. Appellants. Vs. Shantiniketan (Air-India) 3 Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Adv., i/by S.K. Sthalekar for the Appellant in Appeal No. 3/05. Mr. P.C. Kansara for Appellant in Appeal No. 834/04. Ms. A.S. Malvankar for Appellant in Appeal No. 791/04. Mr. V.K. Narkar for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. : . The parties have taken out notices of motion nos. 2807 of 2009, 2864 of 2009 and 3016 of 2009 respectively for restoration of their appeals arising out of a decision in the contempt petition no. 132 of 2002 where they have been inducted by the learned Single Judge of this Court for having committed contempt of Court. 2. It is common ground in all these notices of motion that the counsel for the parties were taken unaware which led to dismissal of the appeals resulting in penal consequences. Therefore, this Court should restore the appeals. 4 3. For the reasons stated in the respective affidavits in support of the notices of motion for restoration, we are inclined to recall our orders dated 28.7.2009 and direct that the parties should be diligent in prosecuting the appeals as and when listed on the Board and at least the parties should remain present in Court as their counsel are expected to be busy in some Court or the other and may not be available when the matter is called out. It is made clear that on the next occasion such excuses will not be tolerated as on that date none of the parties were personally present in the Court and applications for recalling of the orders are made on the ground that their counsel were busy in other Courts. 4. All these notices of motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). All these appeals be listed on Board on 20.9.2009. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)