1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2010. Shri Ashok Laxman Gurnule -: VERSUS :- Khatijabegam Sarwarkhan Pathan and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri G.G. Bade, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Bharadwaj, learned counsel (with Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel) for respondent nos. 1 to 6 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.7. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that the appeal filed before respondent no.7 Divisional Commissioner was dismissed in default, as counsel then representing petitioner failed to appear. Giving this as reason, request for restoration along with an application for condonation of delay was moved and that application and application for condonation of delay came to be rejected. Learned counsel 2 contends that the reason as put forth has not been appreciated at all. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.7 support the impugned order. They contend that, negligence of said Advocate as alleged, cannot be used to the prejudice of present respondents. With the assistance of all the learned Counsel, I have perused the papers. On affidavit petitioner pointed out to respondent no.7 the reasons for delay and also non appearance of his earlier Advocate. The petitioner resides at Gadchiroli and matter was filed before the Authority at Nagpur. The Advocate entrusted with the responsibility was also from Gadchiroli. In these circumstances, the fact that Advocate remained absent on relevant dates by itself cannot be used against the petitioner to hold him negligence in the matter. However, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 is also right in contending that the rights of respondent nos. 1 to 6 cannot be allowed to be prejudiced in this manner. Hence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- by petitioner to respondent nos. 1 to 6 on or before 17.08.2010, the delay is condoned and application for restoration of 3 appeal is granted. Appeal dismissed in default is thus restored to file of respondent no.7. Parties to appear before respondent no.7 on 17.08.2010 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. If the costs are not paid or not deposited before the said date, the respondent no.7 shall be free to dismiss the appeal in default. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.