1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5320 OF 2008 Balbir N. Thakur. ..Petitioner. V/s. Bhaskar Namdeo Khandke, since deceased through L.Rs & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani for petitioner. Mrs. Snehal Modi for Respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Order of rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay was not appellable, for which reason the order passed by the Court below, which is impugned in this Petition is passed without jurisdiction. However, this submission overlooks the express provision under Order 43 Rule 1 which permits filing of appeal against Order refusing to set aside abatement. It is not in dispute that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the trials in respect of rent proceedings before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. 2 In the circumstances, there is no substance in the submission. 3. Insofar as argument on merits of the controversy is concerned, in my opinion, the Appellate Court considering the factual matrix of the case has rightly exercised the discretion taking the view that the approach of the trial Court was manifestly wrong. 4. No interference in the said opinion of the Appellate Court is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. Hence Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)