1 49011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 490 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 4423 OF 2003 Dilip Machindra Jarag & Anr. ...Applicants V/s. The President, The Maratha Mandal Ichalkaranji, & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Archana Kololgi for the Applicants Mr. T.S. Ingale for Respondent No. 1 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 30TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the applicants. 2. Although the delay is of over five years, for the reasons mentioned in the application, in our opinion, being sufficient cause, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). We are inclined to grant this relief, as the applicants have asserted that the earlier advocate-on-record did not communicate the decision passed on 2 49011 7th March, 2005. It is well-established position that the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate. 3. The counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that, after the disposal of writ petition, certain subsequent event has occurred, which would disentitle the petitioner for relief claimed in the petition. That issue can be considered in the pending writ petition. It will be open to the parties to raise all contentions with regard to the said aspect in the writ petition which will be considered on its own merits. 4. This application is disposed of. 5. Restored writ petition shall proceed as per its turn. The petitioners shall, however, remove office objections, if any, within four weeks from today, failing which, the petition shall, once again, be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court, and shall not be restored hereafter even if the advocate files affidavit that it is his or her mistake. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.