1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (O) No.1199 of 2009 in M.C.A. (St.) No. 18523/2009 in C.R.A. No.104/2006 (Ankush Balkrishna Padole ..vs.. Raghonath Ganpatiji Rajgere and another) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.P.Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. A.S.Sirsikar, Advocate for the Respondents. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 09th March, 2010. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 725 days in filing an application for restoration of the Civil Revision Application No. 104/2006, which was dismissed for default on 26th October, 2007. The present application is filed on 20th November, 2009. The applicant states in the application that the Civil Revision Application had been placed on the provisional board. Thereafter, on 26th October, 2007, it was placed before the Court for hearing. The learned counsel for the applicant did not notice the matter being shown on the board for hearing on that date and consequently did not remain present. The learned counsel came to know about the order of dismissal only on 7th November, 2009 when the applicant had approached him making enquiry about the status of the matter. 2 Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter was dismissed solely on account of negligence on the part of the counsel and therefore, the applicant should not be made to suffer for the same. Mr. Sirsikar, the learned counsel for the respondents submits, on the other hand, that there is no cause whatsoever, much less sufficient, made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. He states that earlier also the revision application had been dismissed and was restored to file by the order dated 10th February, 2006, subject to payment of costs. The learned counsel for the applicant states that he had noted that the matter was placed on provisional board, but thereafter when it was placed on board before the Court for final hearing, it was not noted by him through inadvertence. The purpose of publication of the provisional board by the office is to put the parties and their counsel to notice that the matters listed in the provisional board would be placed on the board of the Court at any point of time. Even if some concession is to be given to the applicant and his counsel for not noticing the matter on the board on 26th October, 2007, the fact cannot be ignored that thereafter, the applicant and his counsel had taken no steps for almost 2 years. For this lapse, there is no explanation whatsoever offered. Even if the matter being placed on the board was not noticed by the learned counsel, what was expected of him having known that the matter was placed on the provisional board that he would keep atleast a watch over the 3 provisional board. Had this been done, the learned counsel and the applicant would have learnt about the order of the dismissal much earlier and could have filed an application for restoration within time. In the circumstances, in my opinion, there is no case whatsoever made out for condonation of delay of 725 days in fling the application for restoration. Hence, the civil application is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the Civil Application (CAO) No.1199/2009, the Misc. Civil Application (St.) No.18523 of 2009 does not survive. The same also stands disposed of. JUDGE. Diwale