SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6172 OF 2008 Parasmal Dalichand Oswal & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Digambar Ramchandra Garule ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6173 OF 2008 Parasmal Dalichand Oswal & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Krishnabai Digambar Garule ...Respondent ...... Mr.K.M.Kadam i/b Milind Parab & Associates for Petitioners. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution : 2 : of India is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. No fault can be found with the Appellate Court which eventually dismissed the Appeal for default because of non-appearance on two successive days. No reason is forthcoming as to what prevented the Petitioners to ensure that appearance is made before the Appellate Court when the Appeal was listed for hearing. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Advocate handling the matter before the Appellate Court did not inform the Petitioners about the dismissal of the Appeal as back as on 24th June 2003. The present Petitions are filed on 7th August 2008. However, no such case has been made out in the Petitions. According to the Petitioners, even though the Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal for default, ought to have considered the matter on merits. This ground is completely contrary to the settled legal position. The settled legal position is that the Appellate Court is free to dismiss the appeal for default; but if the Appeal is dismissed on that count, the Appellate Court cannot enter into the merits of the controversy and record detailed reasons. : 3 : : 4 : 3. Perhaps the attempt of the Petitioners seems to protract the proceedings as the decree passed against the Petitioners is one of eviction. As aforesaid, impugned order was passed as back as in 2003 whereas present Petitions have been filed only in the year 2008. 4. The Petitions are devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.