IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (C ) NO. 35/2010 IN CIVIL REVISIOIN APPLICASTION NO. 95/2009. Rajesh Madhukar Vinchurkar and another - Vs. - Mahadeo Chandhuji Bhagat and ohers ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri M. Mishrae,counsel for the petitioner Shri H.B. Gaikwad, counsel for respondent no.1. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3 CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th NOVEMBER, 2010. This application is made for recall of the order dated 11.06.2010 passed in Civil Revision Application no. 95/2009. The recall of the order is on the grounds which are stated in para 4 and 5 of the application which are reproduced below. “ 4. It is submitted that Civil Revision Application was listed for admission on 11.06.2010 at Serial No. 7 before this Hon'ble Court. The counsel for non-applicants Nos. 2 & 3 was present when the matter was called out. However, the counsel for applicant was absent and did not attend the case. Hence, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the application in default. It is submitted that though in terms of judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the matter can be restored if request for setting aside dismissal order is made on very day without there being the need of an application to that effect, the hearing of the application in the absence of respondents was not permissible. 5. It is submitted that the counsel for applicants was under an obligation to inform the counsel for non-applicants that he was going to mention the matter for restoration and more importantly was going to press the matter for hearing. It is revealed from the order dated 11.06.2010 that the learned counsel had urged before this Hon'ble Court to proceed with the matter. Finally this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the Revision Application. As the counsel for- respondents had no notice of restoration as well as hearing the revision application came to be allowed without any notice to the non- applicants.” The averments which are made in para 5 of the application have not been denied. On the contrary, it is stated that none was present on behalf of the non-applicants no. 2 and 3 when the matter was called and, therefore, the case was heard on merits. In view of this, it is apparent that the notice of restoration of matter was not given to the applicant and in my opinion that is a good ground for recall of the order dated 11.06.2010, as the applicants were not heard when the matter was decided on merits. Hence, the application is allowed. The order dated 11/06/2010 passed in Civil Revision Application no. 95/2009 is recalled and the revision application shall be heard finally on merits, on 8/12/2010. JUDGE Hirekhan