1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 151/2004 (Sou. Bhawana w/o Uday Naik Vs. Laxmibai Shamlal Gaur and ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for the R-3 and 6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2009 . C.A.F. No. 2365/2009 Heard Shri C.A. Joshi for the applicant. It would not be necessary to issue notice to the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 had not put in their appearance before this Court in spite of the service of notice through the paper publication on 25/3/2008. It appears that because no steps were taken within the stipulated time and the paper cutting was not filed before this Court within a particular time, the matter stood dismissed against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Good grounds are made out in the civil application for condoning the delay of 350 days in filing the application for restoration of first appeal, against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Shri Deopujari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 6, does not have any serious objection to the prayer made in the civil application. Hence, for the reasons stated in the civil application, the delay in filing the application for restoration of the first appeal against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, is 2 condoned. C.A. is allowed and disposed of. C.A. No. 2391/2009 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the respondent nos. 3 and 6. It appears from a perusal of the civil application that the appellant was permitted to serve the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 who reside at Indore and Dhar, by paper publication in the daily “Indian Express”. This Court had asked the appellant to take the necessary steps within a period of three weeks. That did not mean that the paper publication itself ought to have been made within a period of three weeks. It appears that the paper publication was made, however, paper cutting was not filed before this Court immediately after three weeks and, therefore, this Court held that the matter stood dismissed against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The paper cutting of the public notice is filed in the Court. In this view of the matter, the appeal needs to be restored to file against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. C.A.F. No. 2391/2009 is hereby allowed by setting aside the order passed by this Court on 20/2/2008. Civil application is disposed of. The appellant should, however, re-publish a notice in the daily newspaper “Indian Express” for serving the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, after the restoration of the appeal. JUDGE RMP