1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.822 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1047 OF 1996 Sandeep Anil Shah : Applicant. Versus Reshikesh Trust Pvt.Ltd through its trustees Mr.H.H. Sodha & ors. : Respondents. Smt.Anita A Agarwal for the Applicant. Mr.C.M.Kothari for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant prays for restoration of the above Appeal which has been dismissed for default on account of the conditional common order dated 20th March 2006. The said order relates to payment of Bhatta Charges within a particular time frame and on failure to do so, the matters mentioned in the list of 20th March 2006 were to stand dismissed for default. 2 2. On failure of the Applicant to comply with the said conditional common order dated 20th March 2006, the above Appeal, which was admitted and certain interim reliefs were operating, was dismissed for default. 3. The reasons for non-compliance of the said common conditional order dated 20th March 2006 are mentioned in the above Civil Application. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 contended that the reasons mentioned are not bonafide on account of the events which have transpired after the dismissal of the above Appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 that the Appellant has nothing to losse and it is the Respondent No.5 who is likely to be prejudiced inasmuch as the decretal amount deposited by him in this Court is languishing without the sale certificate issued in his favour. 3 5. Since the Appeal has been dismissed on account of the said common conditional order, in my view, the reasons mentioned in the above Civil Application deserve acceptance. No motives, in my view, can be alleged against the Appellant. Since the Appeal was already admitted and certain interim reliefs were operating, the case for restoration of the Appeal is made out. 6. The above Civil Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. In my view, the interest of justice would be served, if the Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No.5. 8. On restoration of the Appeal, the same to be listed on the final hearing board as per chronology. 9. The above Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 4 [R.M.SAVANT, J]