: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.680 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.915 OF 2006 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.681 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.916 OF 2006 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.682 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.917 OF 2006 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.683 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.918 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.J. Ghogre for the Appellants. Ms.S.V. Gajare, AGP for the Respondents. (In all the matters) CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. By consent the above Appeals from : 2 : Order are taken up for final hearing. 2. These Appeals from Order have been filed against the orders passed by the trial Court rejecting the Appellants/Plaintiffs’ application to set-aside the order dismissing the suits for default. 3. It was submitted in detail that the suits had actually been adjourned to 30.7.2004 and not to 12.7.2004. The suits wrongly appeared on board on 12.7.2004 instead of 30.7.2004. It is for this reason, the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ advocate remained absent on that date. 4. The record further indicates that there was no error on the part of the Court or of the office of the Court. I will presume however in favour of the Appellants that there was a bona-fide error on the part of the Appellants’ advocate in noting the date. The party ought not to suffer in such circumstances. The Appellants could have been given one more chance in view of this explanation. : 3 : I hasten to add that this is merely as a matter of indulgence and does not reflect upon the reasonings of the trial Court. 5. The Notice of Motion was also rejected on the basis that the structures which were sought to be protected against the demolition had in fact already been demolished. This position is disputed. If indeed the structures have been demolished, as alleged by the Respondents, the suits would indeed be infructuous. That however, is another matter which may be established before the trial Court. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order in each of the above Appeals from Order is set-aside. The suits are restored to file subject to the Appellants in each of the Appeals from Order paying to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority a sum of Rs.1000/- within eight weeks from today. 7. The facts in all the above Appeals from Order are similar. The Appeals from Order and the above Civil Applications are : 4 : accordingly disposed of by this common order.