:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2234 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2234 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2234 OF 2007 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL (L) NO.538 OF 2007 (L) NO.538 OF 2007 (L) NO.538 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1819 OF 1996 NO.1819 OF 1996 NO.1819 OF 1996 Shantaram Damodar Patil ..Appellant Vs. Taher K.Aligiwala ..Respondent Mr.Anil Singh i/b.S.S.Jinsiwala for the Appellant. Mr.Pankaj Datar i/b. Pankaj J.Das for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER,2007 : 29TH NOVEMBER,2007 : 29TH NOVEMBER,2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the Affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion as well as the Affidavit-in-reply. It appears, that the Appellant was pursuing a wrong remedy by filing a Notice of Motion for setting aside the exparte decree, wherein the Appellant had lost almost two years. For the reasons stated in the Affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. The Appellant shall pay the costs quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand only) to the Respondent. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) :2: