{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3619 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.126 OF 2007 Narayan s/o Tulshiram (Deceased) LRs APPLICANTS VERSUS Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.D.Narwadkar, Advocate for applicant Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for R.1, 3A to 3C Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for 7C and 7E ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th May 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present civil application the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 180 days caused in preferring civil application to set aside the order dated 24.07.2009 and for restoration of appeal against respondent No.9A. 2. Mr.Mantri, learned counsel has filed affidavit in reply to oppose the civil application. {2} 3. Perused the record in the light of the rival submissions. It appears that on 24th July 2009 an order was passed by this Court to furnish fresh addresses of respondent No.5 and 9A within a period of 5 weeks of the date of the order, failing which the AO was to be dismissed against the said respondents. Counsel for appellant was not present on 24.07.2009. Record further shows that as no steps were taken, the Registrar dismissed the AO against respondents No.5 and 9A. It appears that the said order is passed on 19.11.2009 and thereafter the AO came up for hearing before this Court on 10 th December 2009. It appears that on 10 th December also counsel for appellant was not present before this court. On 10 th December, the matter was required to be adjourned after vacation. Record further shows that the matter was on board on 21 st January 2010. On that day also the matter was adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It appears that the present civil application is filed on 15th February 2010 contending that the order passed by the Court could not be communicated to the appellant in time and hence delay is caused in taking proper steps to furnish correct address of the respondents. 5. Record also shows that the appellant is not diligently prosecuting the proceedings in this the proceedings in this Court. Though the appeal is dismissed against respondents No.5 and 9A vide letter dated 19.11.2009, yet the application to recall the order {3} is filed in respect of respondent No.9A only. It appears that the present address of the respondent given in the application is also not complete one. In the premise, the grounds mentioned in the application are not sufficient to recall the order dated 19.11.2009. 6. Consequently, the civil application stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca3619-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.126 OF 2007 Narayan s/o Tulshiram (Deceased) LRs APPLICANTS VERSUS Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.D.Narwadkar, Advocate for applicant Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for R.1, 3A to 3C Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for 7C and 7E ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th May 2010 PER COURT: 1. By consent, S.O. to 16.06.2010. To be shown under caption “Due Admission”. If any interim relief is in force, then the same to continue till next date. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca3619-10