1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2007 Rashidabi wd/o Mohammed Akbar & Anr. ... Applicants. Versus Sakinabai wd/o Mohammed Akbar ... Respondent. Mr. Geogy Jacob i/b Mr. Geogy Jacob & Associates for the Applicants. Mr. Ranjit A. Thoart for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : J.H. Bhatia, J. DATED : March 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-the landlords filed Suit No. 595 of 1991 for eviction and possession against the present Applicants. Even though written statement was filed, the Defendants did not appear thereafter. At the time of trial, neither the witnesses for the Plaintiff were cross examined nor the Defendants led any evidence. In the result, on 12.03.2003 decree for eviction came to be passed against the Defendants. On 16.07.2004 i.e. 16 months after the decree was passed, the Defendants filed an application before the trial Court for setting aside exparte decree. That application came to be rejected. Thereafter, they preferred an Appeal 2 which was also dismissed on 7th March, 2007. Thereafter, the present Revision Petition came to be filed in August, 2007. 3. According to the Applicants on 28.06.2000 they were informed by their advocate on record Shri Vasant Bhange that the suit was dismissed and therefore, they did not appear thereafter. Only on 18.06.2004 they came to know that a decree was passed against them and therefore they appeared in the matter. They also filed an affidavit of Shri Vasant Bhange, Advocate in support of their claim. According to him, on the basis of the information given by his clerk, he had informed the party about dismissal of the suit, without verifying the correctness of the information given by the clerk. 4. It is material to note that, Advocate Shri Vasant Bhange, no where states in the affidavit how the information about dismissal of the suit was communicated to the party. No letter or any written communication from him is produced on record to show that infact there was such a communication from the advocate to the Defendants about dismissal of the suit. It is also material to note that the Advocate Shri Vasant Bhange does not take the responsibility of giving wrong information on himself. He states in the affidavit that he had relied upon the information given to him by his clerk without verifying that information. No such affidavit of that clerk was filed. The affidavit filed by the Advocate Shri Vasant Bhange appears to be a very intelligent ploy to defeat the decree passed in 3 favour of the Plaintiff by taking a false plea that the Defendants were leveling under the impression that the suit was already dismissed. It is impossible to believe that the Advocate could have communicated such information orally, particularly when it is nobody’s case that they are residing in the same building or in the neighbour-hood. In such circumstances, the Advocate could have communicated information only in writing and it is nobody’s case that any written communication was there. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, the Courts below did not believe this contention. It appears that the Defendants were not paying the rent since 1991. The suit was decreed after 12 years and for last about 6 years the Plaintiff is required to contest the different Applications, Appeals and Revisions. It is also material to note that the rent of the premises was just Rs. 12/- while the landlord might have spent huge amount in defending such applications, appeals and revisions. It may be noted here that during the arguments before this court, I specifically asked the counsel for the Applicants as to whether the Respondent could be compensated by paying commensurate cost but he declined, showing inability. 5. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find that the Courts below rightly rejected the plea of the Defendant/Applicants. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 4 6. At this stage, the learned counsel seeks some more time. But on a specific query, he flatly stated that the Applicants are not in position to vacate. As the Defendants-Applicants do not have intention to vacate the premises inspite of the decree passed 6 years before, I do not see any justification to grant any more time. Therefore, the request is turned down. (J.H. Bhatia, J.)