( 1 ) wp4642.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4642 OF 2011 Kishanrao s/o. Rangoba Gaikwad & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Ashok s/o. Baburao Shinde & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 21.10.2011 P.C. :- 1. This writ petition is filed against order dated 1st February, 2011, passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, on Exh.1 of Misc. Petition No. 60 of 2010. The petitioner had filed this petition for restoration of F.A.No.5 of 2009. The petitioners were applicants in F.A.No.5 of 2009, because their son had died due to accident while he was doing his duty with respondent No.1. F.A.No.5 of 2009 was posted for evidence on 10th March, 2010, but the petitioners did not remain present before the Court and their petition was dismissed. So, F.A.No.5 of 2009 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Soon thereafter on 8th March,2010, Misc. Petition was moved for restoration. Notice to other side was given but they remained absent. The learned Judge still rejected the petition saying that the order cannot be disturbed because F.A.No.5 of 2009 was dismissed for sufficient reasons. He observed that on that day the petitioners and their advocate were absent, though they were ( 2 ) wp4642.11 repeatedly called till 4.00 p.m. He further observed that even on earlier dates the petitioners and their advocate were absent. The learned Judge, however, did not take into account the reasons put-forth by the petitioners as to why they could not attend the case on 10th March, 2010. Their petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is stated in the petition that petitioner No.1 was suffering from severe backache and due to such predicament petitioner No.2, who is his wife, also could not attend the Court. In support of this factual aspect the petitioners have submitted medical certificate on record. The learned Judge made no reference to this ground and to the medical certificate etc. I think the learned Judge committed grave error in dismissing Misc. Petition No. 60 of 2010. 2. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Misc.Petition No.60 of 2010 is allowed and F.A.No.5 of 2009 is restored to file. The petitioners shall attend the case meticulously henceforth. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/OCT11/wp4642.11