1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2007 1. Smt. Kamlabai w/o Trimbak Amle, Age: 41 years, Occ. Household, r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 2. Trimbak s/o Narhari Amle, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agri., r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 3. Mahalingappa Vaijanathappa Bawge, Age: 57 years, Occ: Business, r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4. Smt.Shivnandabai w/o Mahalingappa Bawge, Age 41 years, Occ: Household, r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ...PETITIONERS (Orig.defendant nos. 1 to 3 & 9) VERSUS 1. Balaji s/o Narhari Amle, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 2. Datta s/o Narhari Amle, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agri. r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 3. Smt. Girijabai w/o Narhari Amle, Age 68 years, Occ: Household, 2 r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4. Smt. Sulochana @ Shashikala w/o Digambar Giram, Age: 53 years, Occ: Household, r/o Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. 5. Sunder Dagdu Dake, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agri r/o Kostagaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 6. Smt.Shakuntala Bhagwan Karpurde, Age 45 years, Occ: Household, r/o Bardapur, Dist. Beed. 7. Smt.Padmin w/o Arun Bansode, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, r/o Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 8. Smt. Suman w/o Sadhu Kshirsagar, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, r/o Nitur, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS (Nos. 1 to 3 : Orig.plaintiffs & Nos. 4 to8 :Orig.defendants) ... Mr.Hiraji Gaikwad, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. A.G.Kanade, Adv., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 served. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :3rd Feb.,2010 *** 3 PER COURT : 1. Heard. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. Respondents waive service. 2. Dismissal of RCS No.37/2003, dt. 17.6.2005 was subject of Miscellaneous Application No.36/2005 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedpur. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, on hearing the parties, accepted plaintiffs contention by order dt.22.12.2006 and restored RCS No.37/2003, setting aside the order dt.17.6.2005, same is assailed by the aggrieved defendant. 3. Learned Counsel submits, the reasons assigned for setting aside the order and rather for the absence of the plaintiff on the material day when the suit was called for hearing, is far from record. There are three plaintiffs, the contentions are in respect of plaintiff no.1 alone. Nothing is indicated as to what had happened to the Advocate who was prosecuting the matter. Learned Counsel urged, the order of restoration calls for interference being erroneous. 4. The parties litigating apparently are 4 inter se relations. The matter revolves to partition. The reasons assigned in paragraph no.3 of the restoration application, should not have been disbelieved as the plaintiff no.1, who had the authority to appear in the matter on behalf of the other plaintiffs, was not keeping well. Absence of the Advocate should not be made a capital to oppose the restoration application. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge are just, he exercised his discretion judiciously as he has imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the respondents/defendants. In the situation, order under challenge being just, since it was in terms of question involved of immoveable property, does not require interference. Civil Revision Application dismissed. Rule discharged. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/43-07cra