1 48-wp7988-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7988 OF 2011 Manori Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. David Da Silva & Others .. Respondents ..... Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for the petitioner. Mr. Vishwajit Sawant for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the Judgment and order of the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit filed by the respondent which was dismissed for non prosecution has been restored. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that the application under Order XI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not maintainable. He submitted that looking to the grounds pleaded by the respondents, the examination of the concerned clerk of the advocate was necessary. He submitted that the reasons given by the trial Court for not restoring the suit have been upset by 2 48-wp7988-11 the Appellate Court by a very cryptic Judgment. He, therefore, submits that the Judgment of the Appellate Court is illegal. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said power has been conferred on this Court to ensure that the Court subordinate to this Court act within their own bounds. It is not necessary that in exercise of power of superintendence, this Court should interfere with every order passed by the Courts subordinate to it on the ground of illegality. It is true that the Appellate Court could have written an elaborate Judgment, however, the Appellate Court has accepted the reason set out by the original plaintiff No.2 for his absence before the trial Court and has passed an order of restoration of the suit. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that in a matter of restoration of the suit which was dismissed for non prosecution, the trial Court could not adopted a hyper technical approach. This is not a case where this Court can interfere in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)