(1) WP 501.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2010 Bhagwat S/o Gabaji Nawale Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Respondent ..... Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent- State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel and learned Addl. Govt. Pleader. The petitioner is original defendant. He had filed suit bearing Special Civil no. 53 of 1981. That suit was dismissed in default. He has submitted an application for restoration of the suit on the ground that his Advocate was engaged in another Court in hearing of part heard matter and he was suffering from influenza and as such could not personally attend the Court. The suit was dismissed in default on 8.6.1983. (2) WP 501.2010 2. The trial Court directed restoration of the suit by passing order dated 30.9.2005. However, curiously enough, by order dated 22.6.2009 the application for restoration was dismissed. 3. There is apparent and inherent contradiction between the two orders of the trial Court. Once it was found that the petitioner could not remain present before the trial Court due to his illness and personal difficulty, again the same Court could not have held that such a reason was unavailable and he failed to prove the personal difficulty or illness. The trial Court did not consider the earlier order when for the second time order dated 22.6.2009 in M.A.R.J.I. 71 of 1985 the restoration application was dismissed. There is no application of judicial mind to the contentions of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be interferred with. 4. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application for restoration be deemed as allowed and the suit stands restored to its original position with direction to (3) WP 501.2010 expedite the final hearing and also to consider the relevant issues including the jurisdictional issue raised by the respondent. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp