agk FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2863 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s or Court’s or Judge’s orders directions & Registrar’s orders -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.S. Apte for the petitioner. Mr.Saikumar Pathrude for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 10TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed against the order dated 16-4-2008 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Thane dismissing Misc. Application No.349 of 2007 filed for restoration of application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. In this case, challenging the Award dated 8-8-2005, the Petitioners had filed an application before the District Judge, Thane under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The said application was heard from time to time. However, on 1-12-2007 the Petitioners could not remain present, as a result the said application was dismissed. Immediately thereafter on 4-12-2007, the petitioners took out Miscellaneous application for setting aside the order dated 1-12-2007. By the impugned order dated 16-4-2008, the District Judge has dismissed the said application. 4. The only ground on which the application has been dismissed is that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition by filing reply. 5. In the present case, admittedly the matter was heard before the District Judge on several occasions, wherein the petitioner had participated. The fact that on 1-12-2007 the petitioner or its advocate had not remained present could not be a ground to dismissing the application. In para 2 of the judgment, the learned Judge has recorded the explanation given by the petitioner for not remaining present on 1-12-2007. The said reason constituted sufficient reason for restoring the application. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16-4-2008 is quashed and set aside and the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is restored to the file of the District Judge, Thane. Since the application is pending since 2005, the District Judge, Thane is directed to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. 7. In para 3 of the writ petition, it is recorded that there were settlement talks during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Judge. The parties are at liberty to negotiate the settlement in the meantime. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. 9. All contentions of the parties are kept open. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.