IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2006 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.261 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2006 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.753 OF 1994 Smt.Krishnabai wd/o.Mahavirprasad Mantri & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Chandrarekha Mantri & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Bharat Vaishnava i/b Bharat Vaishnava & Co. for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JUNE 27, 2006. JUNE 27, 2006. JUNE 27, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the Application. In my opinion, no just reason is : 2 : forthcoming for not taking steps in terms of the conditional order dated 23rd March 2006. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the Advocate, Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b), (c) and (d), on condition that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner to pay cost quantified at Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Fifty) each to the High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.