(1) CA. 7026.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7026 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 1995 Tukaram S/o Pundlik Kad .. Applicant VERSUS Narhari S/o Sonaji Ranakale and anr. .. Respondents Ms. Netrali Jain, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate for the applicant None present for the respondent no.1 though served. Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. K.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The applicant seeks restoration of the First Appeal which was dismissed for default due to persistent want of attendance. The respondents are served, but no reply is filed. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 brought to my notice the unsustainable reasons mentioned in the application. He pointed out that the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-applicant had persistently ignored the call of the Court. I am afraid if this kind of reason is utilised for dismissing such applications, there would be lots of dismissals and the matters would get disposed of (2) CA. 7026.2009 without considering the merits. In order to decide the matter on merits, the application deserves to be allowed. 2] The Civil Application is allowed as prayed for. First Appeal stands restored to it’s file and be listed for final hearing in it’s chronological order. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp