:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2008 M/s. Faria, Mania, Peris, Vandal Savers & Ors. a firm ..Petitioner versus Balbhim Arm-chair More & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Z. S. Iraqi for the Petitioner. Mr. K. U. Chaplain for the Respondents. CORAL : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAL : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAL : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court upholding the Order of the trial Court rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 23.7.2007. By that Order dated 23.7.2007 the trial court treated the petitioner’s evidence as closed. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in a suit filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration that he is a tenant of the premises. Apparently after some attempts on the part of the petitioner to delay the matter, the trial court passed an Order on 23.7.2007 treating :2: the evidence of the petitioner as closed. The evidence of another witness defendant No.5(a) was recorded. The petitioner / defendant No.1 did not even file an affidavit stating that he was under an impression that he would get an opportunity to file evidence after the cross-examination of the plaintiff. After 23.7.2007 the petitioner applied for setting aside the order closing their evidence. On 15.11.2007 the trial court did not found any sufficient cause for the delay in making such an application and rejected the petitioner’s application. 2. In the Revision, the matter was argued fully before the Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Bench examined the entire record of the case and came to the conclusion that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner as is apparent from the record. Earlier, the suit was decreed exparte in 1995. That exparte decree was set aside in the year 2002. Application for setting aside the exparte decree was not properly pursued, it was accordingly rejected by the trial court. The Appellate bench allowed it in revision. Thereafter the petitioner did not pursue the matter diligently and the evidence was treated as closed on 23.7.2007 :3: i.e. for the period of 3 months after the respondents evidence was closed. 3. Both the Courts have found that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the order after there was a delay in filing this application. The chronology has been discussed by the appellate bench in paragraph 6 of the judgment. Two courts have rendered concurrent findings of facts which care based on evidence. The impugned order does not disclose any error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)