1..... R.P. 290 of 2010 23.11.2011 Shri Ashish Pathak, Counsel for the applicants. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 8.4.2010 passed in F.A. No.617/2009 by which the appeal filed by the applicants got dismissed. For ready reference, we reproduced the order which reads thus :- “8.4.2010. Shri J.P. Dhimole, learned counsel who appears for the appellant despite repeated request by the Court, is not ready and willing to argue the matter but says that the matter be adjourned. As the counsel for the appellant is not arguing the matter, the appeal is dismissed “ Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Shri J.P. Dhimole, who was his junior and he was asked for seeking an adjournment in the matter as the Senior Counsel [Shri Ashish Pathak] was suffering from personal ailment and was bed-ridden. It was submitted by Shri Pathak that he has filed an affidavit in support of this application stating the aforesaid facts. From the perusal of the affidavit, we find that the counsel specifically stated that he was suffering from ailment and was bed-ridden, so he could not come to the Court and asked his junior to seek adjournment. It appears that the junior of Shri Ashish Pathak sought adjournment but it was refused and consequently the appeal was dismissed. The aforesaid dismissal shall fall within the purview of Order 17 Rule 2 CPC as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramarao Marotirao and others vs. Shanti Bai [1977 MPLJ 364]. In view of the aforesaid, we treat this application as an 2..... R.P. 290 of 2010 23.11.2011 application for restoration of F.A. 617/2009 and considering the peculiar facts of this case, we allow this application and direct the office to restore F.A.617/2009 to its number and to place the same before the appropriate Bench for consideration. In view of the aforesaid, no order is required on I.A.7714/10 and I.A.13540/10. Both the applications are disposed of. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE JUDGE vj