1 CRA 393of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.393 OF 2011 Anwar Kamal Abdul Hai ...Petitioner Vs. Taahid Ahmed A.Rashid Khan and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.A.A. Siddiqui for Petitioner Mr. Amol P. Mhatre for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3rd May, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court who was pleased to pass a judgment and order of eviction against him in respect of the suit premises. This order was challenged by him before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has also confirmed the said order and dismissed his appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that he had engaged an advocate. However, the advocate did not file his written statement 2 CRA 393of 2011 and, therefore, the suit was decreed. It is submitted that for the fault on the part of the advocate, the litigant should not be penalized. It is submitted that, therefore, the matter may be remanded back and an opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to lead evidence after permitting him to file his written statement. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1995. In the said suit also, though the Petitioner herein was served, no written statement has been filed. The suit was dismissed and the Respondents herein preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court and, thereafter, the Trial Court decreed the suit. It was submitted that all along the Petitioner herein was aware of the proceedings and was also aware of no W.S. order which was passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s advocate could have to ask one question to the Respondents-Plaintiffs. It is submitted that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is diligently pursuing the litigation. 5. In my view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. Though it has been urged 3 CRA 393of 2011 that the Petitioner is an illiterate person and that he had purchased the suit property from the original tenant, the Petitioner has not proved this fact by producing the relevant documents or by filing his written statement. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Civil Revision Application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)