1 WP No.6132/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6132 of 2010 Rajesh Maruti Taras ... Petitioner versus Mahesh Kartar Bijlani & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 6th August 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 3 July 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division dismissing the delay condonation application as well as application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for setting aside an ex-parte decree. 2. The petitioner was the original defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit no.1220/07. He did not file written statement and remained absent at the hearing. The Court therefore proceeded to 2 WP No.6132/10 hear the suit ex-parte and passed the decree on 3 March 2009. After about 9 months i.e. 19 January 2010 he filed an application for setting the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code along with an application for condonation of delay in filing of an application. The trial Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and therefore dismissed the delay condonation application. Consequently the application for setting aside the ex-parte also stood dismissed as barred by limitation. 3. An order rejecting an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree is appealable under Order 43 Rule1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect refusal to condone delay amounts to rejection and/or dismissal of the application for setting aside an ex-parte decree decree. Consequently, an appeal would lie against the said order. Since the order is appealable, I decline to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that no interference is called for in the order refusing to condone the delay in filing of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioner has first stated that he did not go to the advocate for giving instructions because after engaging an advocate, he was embroiled in a family dispute with his brother relating to some other property. If the petitioner had a dispute relating to the property with his brother that was all the more reason for him to visit his advocate. Consequently, his contention that as he was involved in 3 WP No.6132/10 a family dispute with his brother he had not gone to his advocate cannot be accepted. The fault entirely was of the petitioner. 5. Even after the knowledge of the ex-parte decree, the petitioner did not apply for setting aside ex-parte order within 30 days. The reason given by him that he applied for certified copy but lost the receipt of the application and therefore, did not collect the certified copy though it was ready long ago cannot be accepted. If the petitioner could collect the certified copy even without the receipt on a later date, there is no reason why he could not have collected the certified copy of the judgment and decree on the date which is given to him when he applied for the certified copy. This again shows another act of negligence. 6. The trial Judge therefore did not commit any error in refusing to condone the delay. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)