ca8655.05 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8655 OF 2005 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 13891 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 305 OF 1989 Abdul Rashid s/o Shaikh Bismillah ...Applicant Versus Dagdu Bapu Khadke (Died L.Rs.) Vishwanath Dagadu Khadke and others ...Respondents ..... None for the applicant Mr. L. V. Sangit h/f Mr. V.J. Dixit, senior counsel for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Counsel for respondent No.1 is present and informs that the writ petition No. 305 of 1989 was dismissed on 24.3.2005. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application for restoration of the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 305 of 1989 dated 24.3.2005. However, since there was delay in filing the application for restoration, the petitioner alongwith the application for restoration has also filed an application for condonation of delay. ca8655.05 -2- 2 When the application for restoration alongwith the application for condonation of delay came up for hearing before this Court on 4.9.2008, none was present for the applicant. However, it appears that this court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application on the condition that the applicant, by way of costs, shall deposit an amount of Rs.250/- in this court on or before 22.9.2008. It was made clear that failure on the part of the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.250/- towards the costs within stipulated period, the application shall stand dismissed without back reference to the Court. Accordingly, civil application was disposed of. It further appears that this court on 15.4.2009 heard the matter and observed that it is unfortunate that the earlier direction to deposit Rs.250/- is not complied with. Resultantly, the L.Rs. of respondent No.1 are not brought on record. The time was extended till 22.4.2009 to pay the costs amount of Rs.250/-. This court has further observed that in case no steps are taken, the writ petition stands dismissed as against the concerned respondents. 3 However, counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that till date no cost amount of Rs.250/- is deposited by the applicant in the Registry of this court. Office note also indicate that amount of Rs.250/-, as directed by this court, has not been deposited towards the costs. ca8655.05 -3- As a result, the application for condonation of delay stood dismissed since condition of deposit of costs amount was not complied with. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to entertain the restoration application further. Hence, consequently, application for condonation of delay and the application for restoration stand rejected. Registry is directed not to place this matter for further hearing. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/