IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2007 GOMANTAK MARATHA SAMAJ REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT ADV. MAHESH AMONKAR ... Petitioner Versus M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTIONS ... Respondent Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 19th September, 2008 P.C. None appears for the respondent despite service being complete. In such circumstances, the petition can be disposed off finally after hearing Shri Lawande for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Trial Court on an application refusing to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit. Consequently, both applications namely, condonation of delay and restoration have been dismissed. 3. The petitioner, original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.39/1996/B pointed out that the suit was filed by the President of the plaintiff, Shri Kamlakar Naik and he appointed Shri Kashinath Shetye as Advocate to conduct the matter. Upon the death of Shri Kamlakar Naik, the Advocate lost contact and touch with the plaintiff. The plaintiff Society therefore, could keep any track of the proceedings. In any event, after framing of the issues, the suit was kept in the dormant file for four years. Thereafter, the suit was placed on board and adjourned for appearance of the plaintiff on 12.01.2006 but the plaintiff did not appear. It was contended that the Advocate's lapse or mistake should not result in the plaintiff being deprived of adjudication on merits. The order was passed on 12.01.2006 and the plaintiff became aware of the same only on 20.01.2007, resultantly delay occasioned and sufficient cause is shown for the same. 4. The Trial Court in a cryptic order, held that the suit was adjourned sine die since 27.01.2000, observed that it was taken up on board on 10.08.2005. Notices were issued to the parties for their appearance on 21.10.2005 but neither the Advocate nor the plaintiff remained present. It observed that there is no material produced to condone the delay and therefore, the application should be dismissed. 5. Having perused the application, in my view, when the Court kept the file sine die and revived the same in 2005 after a lapse of five years and gave opportunity to the plaintiff but there being lack of communication between the Advocate and the plaintiff, interest of justice would have been sub served if the plaintiff would have been given a last opportunity to pursue the claim on merits, subject of course to imposing on him appropriate terms. There was no serious contest and the delay should have been condoned. In these circumstances, the plaintiff deserves last opportunity to pursue the matter on terms that the plaintiff deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today and upon proof of deposit of the sum, the Trial Court shall dispose off the matter on merits within a period of six months from the date of deposit. The plaintiff to co-operate with the disposal of the matter, which can be dismissed in default and this order does not prevent it from doing it at a later stage. 6. Writ petition stands disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. lh/.