-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1928 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2345 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 1991 Roop Mahal Co-operative Hsg. Society. ..Applicant/Petitioners. Versus Ms. Daman Chawla & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Ajay Panikar for the applicant. Mr. S. N. Khaire for respondent no. 1(A). Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 6, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The application is filed for restoration of Civil Application No. 2345 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.1017 of 1991. Writ Petition was dismissed for default for non removal of office objections vide order dated 7th June 2004. The applicant thereafter filed Civil Application No.2845 of 2006 for restoration of W.P. However, this civil application was also dismissed for default by the order dated 28th August 2009 as none appeared for the applicant when the matter was called out for the orders. 2. There has occurred some delay in filing this civil application, srp -: 2 :- therefore prayer for condonation of delay is also made. 3. It is the case of the applicant that in writ petition and earlier civil application Advocate Y. T. John was appearing on their behalf, however, he suffered heart attack in September 2007. Therefore, he was not attending his office regularly. The said advocate was also required to go out of India. The contention of the petitioner is supported by the letter dated 16th July 2010 from his earlier advocate Mr. Y. T. John, which is annexed at Exhibit-E to the Civil Application. So far delay is concerned, it is stated that the applicant was not aware about the order dated 28th August 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the restoration of civil application. He submitted that the reasons given for restoration of Writ petition and civil application are not sufficient. He also submitted that so far as Civil Application No.2845 of 2006 is concerned, there is delay of approximately 2 years and so far as the present civil application is concerned there is delay of 325 days. 5. In my view the cause shown for restoration of Civil Application No. 2345 of 2006 is sufficient. Though there has occurred some delay in preferring this civil application, in the interest of justice, same also deserves to be condoned. However, as far as prayer for restoration of W.P. is concerned, that will be considered in the Civil Application No. -: 3 :- 2345 of 2006. In the light of that, the present civil application is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (1) Civil Application is partly allowed. (2) Civil Application No. 2345 of 2006 is restored by revoking order dated 28th August 2009. (3) Place Civil Application No. 2345 of 2006 for orders on 27th August 2009. (R.V. MORE, J.)