IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2001. Shri Vilas Manikchand Mutha & Anr. .. Applicant. versus Shri Ganpat Arjuna Yeole & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2001. Shri Vilas Manikchand Mutha & Anr. .. Applicant. versus Shri Ganpat Arjuna Yeole & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr. H.S.Venegavkar, for the Applicants, in both the Applications. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Respondent-State, in both the Applications. Mr. Venkatesh Shastri, for the Respondent No.1, in both the Applications. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 24th September 2008. : 24th September 2008. : 24th September 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. These applications have been filed by the petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as a result of non-compliance with the conditional order dated 6th September 2004. Criminal application no.45/2008 is for restoration and criminal application no.67/2008 is for : 2 : condonation of delay in filing application for restoration. 2. When a query was made to the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as to why two separate applications have been filed, the answer was that if one composite application is filed containing prayer for condonation of delay as well as restoration, an office objection is raised by the Registry. In my view, in such a case, it is not necessary to file two separate applications. In application for restoration, a prayer for condonation of delay can also be made and the reasons for delay can be set out. Therefore, the Registry cannot insist on filing two separate applications. 3. These applications are opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the first and the second respondents on the ground that the writ petition has been dismissed in the year 2004. 4. The writ petition stands dismissed for non-removal of office objections and therefore, the applicants cannot be blamed. Hence, a case is made out for restoration. : 3 : 5. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) Criminal application no.45/2008 and criminal application no.67/2008 are allowed. The writ petition is restored. (2) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial-I) to issue necessary instructions to the Registry in view of what is stated in paragraph 2 above. (A.S.Oka,J)