1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CIVIL APPLIATION NO.657/2010 IN M.C.A. ST. 8743/2010 IN S.A. 98/1997 RAMU RAMRAOJI ..VS.. SHRIRAM GANPATRAO GHATOL & ANOR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 14 /10 / 2010 Heard Shri Bhamburkar, the learned counsel for the applicant. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though served. The respondents have however, filed a reply to this civil application. On perusal of the application and the order sheet / docket of this court, it appears that the second appeal was dismissed at least on a couple of occasions because of the absence of the counsel. Though the matter was listed before this court after its restoration on 30.4.1998, 4.5.1998 and 23.6.1998, the learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. The matter was again dismissed in default on 10.8.1998 because of the non appearance of the applicant, as well as his counsel. The matter was then restored and thereafter dismissed 4.5.1999 after granting one more opportunity to the counsel for the applicant to remain present in the court as the counsel for the applicant was not present in the court on 9.4.1999. Thus, this a clear case where the matter is dismissed in default on three occasions, due to the negligence and mistake of the counsel. The reasons stated in the paragraph 7 of the application that after making the arrangement for money the client reached his counsel at Nagpur to prepare the application for restoration of the second appeal also appears to be incorrect, in view of the contents of the paragraph 4 of the reply. The civil application is filed after a lapse of a decade. The statement made in the civil application that on 4.5.1999 the counsel could not remain present before the court because the matter was not marked in the cause list, does not appear to be genuine, in view of the orders passed by 2 the court from time time, showing that the counsel for the applicant was continuously remaining absent when the second appeal was called and the matter was restored twice after being dismissed in default. However, since the client should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel, the civil application is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- in the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur within a period of four weeks. The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE SMP.