1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1271 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3064 OF 1994 IN APPEAL NO. 256 OF 1986 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 5564 OF 1982 Ramasha Ramavad Shukla (Since deceased through his LR’s) Mr. Udayraj R. Shukla & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. Smt. Azizabai W/o. Abdul Karim .... Respondent Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale for the Applicants. Mr. Dipak Deshmukh i/b. M/s. K. P. Tiwari & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 6, 2010 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the prayer of the Applicants on the ground that in February 2010, the Applicants were made aware about the 2 dismissal of the Petition. He submits that there is unexplained delay of more then 60 days. 2. In paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the Civil Application, reasons have been given as to why the counsel for the Applicants could not remain present. The Applicants cannot be allowed to suffer as their advocate did not remain present. The prejudice which may sub-served by ordering payment of cost. 3. Hence the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), subject to the Applicants pay costs of Rs. 5000/- to the Respondent within a period of six weeks from today. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. If compliance is not made, the order of dismissal to the Writ Petition will stand. After compliance is made by the Applicant, the Writ Petition be forthwith added to the final hearing board. [A.S. OKA, J.]