[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3668 OF 2008 Suresh Rajaram Kadam & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. Shaila Jayaram Kadam & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri Rajesh Jain with Sandeep Dhangar i/b M/s. Legal Juris for the Petitioners. S/Shri M.A. Dudhane and Arvind Pawar for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioners/landlords have challenged the impugned order whereby the revisional Court maintained the order passed by the trial Court and thereby set aside the ex parte order/decree passed against the petitioners. Both the Courts below have observed that though wrong provision is mentioned, yet considering the averments and the prayer clauses, the application in question falls within the ambit of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, "CPC"). There is no dispute that such application is maintainable under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC. Taking note of all these, both the Courts below granted the benefit and accepted the said application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC and passed the order. There is no error in the orders [2] on that count. 2. The facet of sufficient reason in filing such application to set aside the ex parte decree has been considered by both the Courts below on merit also. There is definitely substantial rights involved in such matter of landlord and tenant. As the discretion exercised by the Courts below, in my view, is well within the framework of law and record, there is no perversity as such. The concurrent findings so arrived at by the Courts below and even otherwise, in the interest of justice and as there is no perversity in the order, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp3668.8 sjs/D8wp3668.8 sjs/D8wp3668.8