1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4780 of 2010 Subhash Bhupal Chougule ... Petitioner versus Sou.Bharti Paygonda Chiparge & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. M.A.Patil for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 1st July 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 12 March 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure setting aside an earlier order by dismissing the suit in default. 2. Clause (a) of Rule 1 Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an appeal shall lie against an order rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 13. The decision granting the application under Order 9 Rule 13, however is not appealable. 3. The legislature appears to have made a deliberate distinction between an order rejecting the application for restoration and an 2 application granting an application for restoration of a suit dismissed inj default. While former is appealable, the latter is not. The legislative intent is clear that the order granting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 would be final. In my opinion, therefore, an order granting application under Order 9 Rule 13 can be impeached in a writ jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances where there is a manifest error in the order. The impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error. The view taken by the lower court that there was a sufficient cause for remaining absent is a possible finding of fact which cannot be interfered in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)