1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1052 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.EXHIBIT-4 IN S.C.SUIT NO.4294 OF 1998 Shri Chandrakant Tukaram Mahadik ..Appellant V/s Shri Pandurang D. Lande & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.V. S.Paradkar for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Bhat for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 12th October, 2009. PC 1 This is an appeal filed by the original defendant impugning an order dated 30.9.2009 dismissing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree. It is seen that in the plaintiff’s suit filed in the year 1986, a written statement was filed by the present applicant in the year 1987. Thereafter he did not attend to the matter and the decree came to be passed on 29.6.2002. Admittedly when darkhast was filed, he appointed an Advocate but instead of filing an application under Order-9 Rule-13 the said Advocate filed an application in the execution proceedings. Ultimately application under Order-9 Rule-13 came to be filed on 12.9.2009. It appears that the earlier Advocate showed his inability to go on with the matter two days before this application was filed. This application was 2 rejected on the ground that there was a delay of six years in the filing of the application under Order-9 rule-13. I find from the record that the present appellant has claimed to be a tenant of the plaintiff. The ownership of the plaintiff was admitted. Even today, no document is shown which would even prima facie indicate the existence of tenancy. Advocate for the appellant states that he is unable to show any document to prove tenancy. Particularly in this background, I do not find any fault with the reasoning of the trial Court for refusing to entertain the application under Order-9 rule-13 after delay of more than six years. Appeal from Order is therefore, dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3