1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVI L REVISION APPLICATION NO.623 OF 2008 Mahindra Sakharam Patil & Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Praful Bhavanji Shah .....Respondent Mr. Mr. R. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners/Landlords filed suit against the Respondent for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The suit was decreed ex-parte and therefore, the Respondent filed Miscellaneous Notice No.158 of 2006 for setting aside the ex-parte order. The said Miscellaneous Notice was discharged by the Trial Court and thereafter, the Respondent filed Appeal No. 165 of 2006 which was allowed by the impugned order and the ex-parte decree was set-aside and the suit was restored to file. This order is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application. 3. The Lower Appellate Court in exercise of its discretion found the reasons given by the Respondent for setting aside the ex-parte decree are sufficient. The said discretion, in my view, is exercised in judicious way. In the matter of condonation of delay or setting aside ex-parte order, the Court should adopt liberal approach. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, failed to point out any error of jurisdiction or error apparent on face of the record, so as to enable me to interfere in the revision in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed, accordingly. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)