1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC.CIVIL APPLN. NO.320 OF 2009 IN C.R.A.NO.175 of 2003. Khilan Gokul Pardeshi and anr. ..vs.. Krishnatai Narayan Patil and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 5th November, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.V.K.Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.L.A.Mohta, learned counsel for non- applicants. 2. This application has been filed for restoration of the revision which came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections. This court had passed an order on 11/7/2007 that in case the objections are not removed the matter shall stand dismissed without reference to the court and accordingly after lapse of four weeks, the matter came to be dismissed. The objection that was raised was with regard to the non-mentioning of the date of death of 2 respondent no.2 in an application under Order 22 Rule 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware of the date of death and as soon as applicant got the said information, the said information is being supplied. It appears that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the applicant not to supply the date of death particularly because of the fact that the applicant had filed application for substitution of the legal representatives in the year 2005 itself. In view of this, M.C.A. is allowed and the revision stands restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to be paid to the non-applicant. The objection is said to be removed. List the matter for admission in the week commencing from 16/11/2009. JUDGE. Chute