Khan Rahim Akhtar Hussain v. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation And 2 ORS.

Before : Shri A. M. Chandekar Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 21st February, 2018 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL (ORIGINAL SIDE MATTERS) : CHOL/66/2018 WPL/3023/2016 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Mr. D. B. Shukla, Advocate for Applicant.

P.C. :

The present Chamber Order is taken out for restoration of Petition, dismissed by Order dated 10.01.2017 under the provision of O.S.Rule 986.

Perused Affidavit in Support to the Chamber Order. Heard Ld. Counsel for Applicant. Affidavit in Support in respect of Chamber Order reveals that Applicant was directed to remove office objections on or before 31.01.2018.

However, Applicant was unable to contact his Advocate on various reasons.

Therefore, office objections could not be removed. According to the Applicant, it was bonafide mistake on the part of Applicant, therefore, Petition was dismissed.

Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents to contest the Chamber Order. Hence, contention of the Applicant needs to be accepted.

Accordingly, Chamber Order is granted as prayed and signed separately. Costs cost in cause.

Applicants and/or their Advocate to remove office objections on the Petition and get the same numbered and regd.

on or before 07-03-2018, failing Petition to stand rejected for non-removal of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.

Date : 21.02.2018 Prothonotary & Senior Master