1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Revision Appln. No. 45 of 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri K.M.Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri K.B.Jadhav, Advocate, holding for Shri S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for Respondents. 2. This civil revision application is filed against order dated 7.2.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purna, dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2007 filed by present applicant seeking restoration of Regular Civil Suit 40 of 2006 for partition and separate possession filed by him which was dismissed on 6.1.2007. 2 3. Said Civil Miscellaneous Application was filed by the present applicant on 15.3.2007 on the ground that the applicant was hospitalized and was under treatment of Dr.Mali at Parbhani and, therefore, on 6.1.2007 he could not attend the court. 4. Learned Counsel Shri K.M. Babulgaonkar took me through the impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2008 in said Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2007 and more particularly paragraph Nos.8 to 10 of the same. While deciding the said Misc.Civil Appln., learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purna, observed that the suit was dismissed on 6.1.2007. The Plaintiff-applicant who is examined was not having any knowledge about the type of the disease for which he was hospitalized for the period 2.1.2007. to 24.3.2007. The court also observed that it was not serious 3 illness. However, Doctor Mali who had examined and treatedthe applicant-plaintiff stated that from 2.1.2007 to 14.3.2007, the petitioner was under his treatment for viral hepatitis. Ordinarily, there was no reason for trial court to reject the prayer. If the trial court had any doubt regarding nature of illness and whether it really required bed rest or hospitalization, Dr. Mali could have been summoned or opinion of some other expert could have been called for. Therefore, in my opinion, merely because of impression of the learned trial judge that viral hepatitis is not a serious illness is not sustainable in law. If doctor has advised bed rest for a particular period, the patient-client is bound to follow that advice. 5. In this view of the matter, civil revision application allowed. The order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purna, dated 4 7.2.2008 rejecting Civil Misc. Application No. 6 of 2007 (seeking restoration of R.C.S. No. 40 of 2006 which was dismissed for default), is hereby set aside. The said R.C.S. No.40 of 2006 is restored to the file. Parties agree to appear before the trial court in the said suit on 24.8.2009. The trial Court will take up the said suit for hearing and dispose it of in accordance with law. Date:27/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra45.09