:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8897 OF 2007 Bhagwan Bhiva Palekar .. Petitioner. Vs. Ishanya Mumbai Madhyawarti Grahak Sahakari Mandal Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.T.J.Mendon for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Deshpande for respondent no.1. Mr.A.B.Gatne for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.1 and Mr.Gatne, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.2. 3. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which Misc.Application No.69 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order rejecting his claim application No.2028 of 1996 came to be dismissed in default. The Misc. application No.69 of 2005 has been rejected mainly on the ground that it does not state any ground as to why the applicant and his advocate could not remain present on 12.12.2005, the date on which main claim application came to be dismissed in default. Though I do not find any fault with the reasons recorded in :2: :2: :2: the impugned order by the tribunal, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow this petition. It is apparent that the petitioner had engaged an advocate, and unfortunately the advocate also did not remain present on the date of hearing. The petitioner did not stand to any benefit by not remaining present on the date of hearing, apart from the fact on every date of hearing the litigant is not expected to remain present in the court particularly when an advocate is engaged to represent such litigant. In the circumstances I pass the following order: . The order dated 22.12.2006 passed in Misc. Application No.69 of 2005 and the order dated 12.12.2005 passed in the claim application No.2028 of 1996 are set aside. Claim Application No.2028 of 1996 is restored to file. The tribunal shall proceed to hear the claim application on merits in accordance with law. Looking to the delay in filing Misc. Application No.69 of 2005 and in filing this writ petition, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitle to interest on the amount of compensation, if awarded by the Tribunal, for the period between 12.12.2005 till this date. With these observations the Rule is disposed of. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)