vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2007 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.369 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.369 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.369 OF 2005 Dennis Phillip D’souza ... Applicant V/s. Mable Ivy Miranda & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.H.S.S. Murthy for Applicant Ms.Madhu Hiroskar for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 18, 2008 JULY 18, 2008 JULY 18, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The applicant has moved this Civil application for restoring the petition which was dismissed on 10.1.2006. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant that the contempt petition was made returnable on 1.2.2006 by an order dated 22.12.2005. According to him, the matter then appeared on Board on 10.1.2006 when an order covering several matters was passed. Bhatta charges were not paid by the applicant and, therefore, service was not effected. The Court had granted one week’s time to pay bhatta charges failing which the petition was to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned advocate submits that a bonafide mistake was made by his clerk who did not realise that a conditional order has been passed and, therefore, bhatta charges remained to be paid. Service : 2 : is effected by substituted service on Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.4 is represented. The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 vehemently opposes the application and submits that no reason has been set out in the application for restoring the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the civil application must be allowed subject to payment of costs. 2. The Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (aa) subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.