IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 21511 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 21512 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 21511 OF 2008 IN LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 1612 OF 1999 Kareena Panthakey and anr. ....... Appellants Verus Mumbai Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. ........ Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by.Mr.Vinod Thaker, adv.for appellants. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv.for M.C.G.M. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 15 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order of the Bombay City Civil Court by which an application filed by the appellants for setting aside the order dismissing the suit for default was rejected. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the appellants makes a statement that by way of abundant precaution, the appellants have also filed a First Appeal challenging the order dismissing the suit for default. He states that since the First Appeal is filed only by way of abundant precaution, the same would be withdrawn by the appellant. 2. The present suit was filed in the year 1999 to challenge the notice issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. At the relevant time, both the appellants were minors being aged 16 years and 7 years. Since then, they have attained majority and have gone to England to pursue higher studies. Consequently, both the appellants were absent when the trial in the suit was to commence on 11th September, 2008. The appellants had sought an adjournment on the ground that their application for regularisation is still pending with Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The application for adjournment was rejected and the suit came to be dismissed for default. Considering the fact that the appellants are abroad and it was impossible for them to remain present before the court for the purpose of trial, the learned Judge ought to have granted the adjournment, by way of a final opportunity compensating Mumbai Municipal Corporation with costs in order to ensure that the suit is decided on merits instead of disposing it off on a technical ground. Mr.Godbole states that on restoration of the suit, the appellants will make arrangements for immediate prosecution of the suit without seeking adjournment on the ground of pendency of the application for regularisation or any other ground. In the circumstances, the appeal from order is allowed. The order dated 11th September, 2008 is set aside. The application for restoration of the suit is granted. 3. Mr.Thaker learned advocate on record has filed a precipe of Memorandum of appearance since he has filed a signed Vakalatnama before the trial court. However, it will be more appropriate if he is directed to file a signed Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today i.e. on/or before 22nd September, 2008. The parties to appear before the trial court on 1st October, 2008. The appellants to pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to the Corporation. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]