1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : June 29, 2010 Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for revision applicant. None for the respondents. 1. Heard Shri M.P.Kale, learned Advocate for the applicant. 2. This is an application by original defendant No.2 against the order passed by the learned District Judge-1, beed, on 21.3.2009 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2008, whereby application for condonation of delay, so also for restoration of R.C.S. No. 545 of 2000 came to be allowed and the said suit was directed to be restored to the file for disposal in accordance with law. 2 3. Briefly stated, the revision applicant is the original defendant No. 2, Respondent No.1 is original plaintiff and Respondent No.2 is original defendant No.1. Respondent No.1 filed suit for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/= alleging that the appellant and Respondent No.2 had beaten him and caused injuries to him. Initially, suit was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 119 of 1991 which was subsequently renumbered as R.C.S. No.545 of 2000. The said suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 2.7.2007. Thereafter, Misc. Civil Application No. 57 of 2008 was filed for restoration of the suit. There was delay of six months and 8 days in making said application. The said Misc. Civil Application was rejected. 4. It appears that the trial court did not accept the case of Respondent No.1-plaintiff that he was suffering from heart disease and had to undergo by-pass surgery in Sassoon Hospital and 3 Rubi Hall Clinic Hospital at Pune as a result of which he could not attend the said suit and that for these reasons suit be restored by condoning delay. 5. After dismissal of said Misc. Civil Application b the learned II Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Beed. on 23.8.2008, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.61 of 2008 was filed by plaintiff- present respondent No.1 which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge-1 vide order dated 21.3.2009 by which delay was condoned, suit was restored to file and it was directed that the trial court should dispose of the suit in accordance with law. It is this order of the learned District Judge which is challenged in this Civil Revision Application. 6. Shri M.P.Kale, learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order did not consider the evidence on record. There is no explanation about day-to- 4 day delay. 7. However, after going through the judgments of both the courts and considering the medical papers, particularly discharge card and case summary issued by Dr. Inamdar of B.J. Medical College and Sasoon Hospital dated 11.6.2007, it appears that Respondent No.1-Plaintiff was suffering from Ischemic Heart disease. He had to undergo by-pass and medical treatment as indoor patient. 8. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned District Judge is reasonable and probable view and cannot be said to be perverse view so as to call for any interference. 9. Hence, civil revision application dismissed. pnd/cra162.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) 5