spb/- 1 cra469-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 469 OF 2011 Mr. Hindurao Dayanu Gharge & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Sarjerao Bhairu Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the Petitioners. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 The revision application is directed against the order dated 11th February, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge,Sr. Division, Vaduj, allowing the application of the respondents made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for setting aside an ex-parte decree. 2 The trial court has come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for the respondents to remain absent on the date of the hearing of the suit. The trial court has further held that the respondents had engaged an Advocate who had not intimated them about the date of the hearing of the suit and therefore, they were not aware of the date spb/- 2 cra469-11.sxw of hearing and accordingly the trial court allowed the application. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the evidence of the respondent, who has stated on oath that he did not want to examine the Advocate. On the basis of the said admission, submitted counsel, the trial court should not have reached to a conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for the respondents’ remaining absent. Appreciation of evidence is a prerogative of the trial court. Finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence is not open for challenge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless the finding is shown to be perverse or is such that no reasonable man would have reach to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence available on record. After perusal of the evidence, I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the trial court is a possible finding of fact and certainly cannot be regarded as a perverse finding of fact. Consequently, no interference is called for in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 It would not be out of place to mention that there was a delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. Therefore, separate application for condonation of delay was filed on the very spb/- 3 cra469-11.sxw ground that the respondents were not aware of the decision as their Advocate had not intimated them about the date of hearing of the suit and the decision therein. The delay condonation application was allowed and the writ petition against that order was rejected by this court. Thus the contention of the respondents that their Advocate did not inform them about the decision of the suit was accepted by this court in the prior proceedings and that order has become final. 5 There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.]