CRA. 505-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 505 OF 2011 Bechuram Ladharam Yadav ...Applicant Vs. Mukhram Yadav ...Respondent *** Mr. R. K. Desai, for the Applicant. Mr. Sunil Singh, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JUNE 29, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the respondent. Applicant is the original defendant/tenant and respondent is the original plaintiff/landlord. A suit was filed by the landlord for eviction against the tenant from the suit premises, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The writ of summons was served and written-statement was filed. Thereafter an order was passed for striking out defence in 2005 and finally an exparte decree was CRA. 505-11 - 2 - passed on 15th April, 2009. An application which was taken out for setting aside the exparte decree in November, 2010, was dismissed. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. However, the said appeal was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has filed present Civil Revision Application under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that some opportunity ought to have been given to the tenant to defend the suit. It is submitted that defendant’s advocate did not inform the defendant about the date and therefore, the defendant could not remain present. It is submitted that the defendant had deposited the entire arrears since beginning and in the written-statement it was contended by the defendant that he had constructed the suit premises and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was submitted that lower appellate court has erred in coming to the conclusion that petitioner was not residing in the suit premises on the basis of the bailiff report. 3. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The record indicates that though the defence was struck off in 2005, no steps were taken for setting aside the CRA. 505-11 - 3 - said order. Even after the exparte decree was passed on 15-4-2010, for a period of 17 months, no steps were taken by the defendant. Both the courts have observed that an attempt was made by the defendant to blame his advocate. The advocate appeared to be very diligent, since he had appeared on almost all the dates. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by both the courts below. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]