NMS/738/2007 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.738 OF 2007 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.5 OF 2007 H.K. Bagri & Co. ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs V/s. M/s.Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.S.Nagvadaria for Petitioner/Plaintiff Mr.K.V. Nikam for Respondent/Defendant CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 14, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Notice of Motion has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the Writ Petition. The Motion is vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent by contending that this is a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the Motion should be dismissed. Considering the pleadings in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion and the submissions at the bar in my opinion the delay needs to be condoned. 2. Hence, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). NMS/738/2007 : 2 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.5 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1294 OF 1984 H.K. Bagri & Co. ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs V/s. M/s.Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.S.Nagvadaria for Petitioners/Plaintiffs Mr.K.V. Nikam for Respondent/Defendant CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 14, 2011 P.C.: The Review Petition has been taken out for the review of my order passed on 29.3.2006. By this order, I had dismissed the suit filed by the Petitioners as the advocate for the Petitioners who appeared before me stated that despite his best efforts, he was unable to obtain any instructions from the Plaintiffs i.e. the Petitioners herein. In the review petition, the petitioners have pleaded that he did not receive any communication whatsoever from his advocate indicating that the matter was on Board. In para 12 of the review petition, he has pointed out that the matter was listed time and again when his advocate was absent and an incorrect statement was made by him on 29.3.2006 which led to the dismissal of the suit. These facts have not been denied in the affidavits in reply. However, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that no material has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner did not receive any communication from his advocates. NMS/738/2007 : 3 : 3. It is not possible to accept the submission of the respondent that the petitioners who have placed material on record to indicate that he did not receive any communication from his advocate that the matter was listed. The petitioners cannot be expected to prove something in the negative. The petitioners have made averred in the review petition that an incorrect statement was made by their advocate which led to the dismissal of the review petition. 4. In my opinion, sufficient cause has been made out for reviewing the order. However, the review petition is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b), on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. Costs to be paid to the Respondent within two weeks from today. 5. Place the Suit before the regular Court.