1 caw2529.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2529 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3039 OF 1995 Kamalakar Kaluram Mokal ...Applicant vs. Haroun Alim abdul Rashid Yusuf ...Respondent Mr.Onkar Warange i/b Mr.Rajiv Patil for the applicant Mr.S.M.Railkar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 3,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for restoration on the ground that there is a gross delay of 15 years. 2 The writ petition which was admitted for final hearing was dismissed for non prosecution on account of the failure of the Advocate for the petitioner to remove office objections. In the civil application, it is stated that the petitioner was not aware of this fact. A litigant cannot be blamed if his matter is dismissed on account of failure of the Advocate to remove office objections, unless it is shown that there is some negligence on the part of the litigant himself. 3 In the circumstances, a case for restoration is made out. The respondent will have to be compensated by ordering payment of costs. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.5000/-. 2 caw2529.sxw 4 There is prayer for restoration of interim relief. However, before the said prayer is considered, an opportunity will have to be given to the respondent to file a reply as there may be subsequent events during last 15 years. 5 Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. The writ petition shall be placed on board on 12 th January 2011 for hearing as to interim relief. JUDGE