- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 292 OF 2008 Manohar J. Pagare ... Applicant Vs. Supriya Ramesh Chandrate ... Respondent Mrs. Smita Gaidhani, for applicant. Mr. M. M. Sathaye, for respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 25 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent. Applicant is the original plaintiff and respondent is the original defendant. The suit is decreed exparte on 22nd August 1997. It is case of the respondent that she came to know about exparte decree on 15th September 2004 when she received notice in the execution proceedings. Thereafter respondent made application for certified copy of the said judgment & decree, which she received on 24th September 2004 and thereafter she filed an application for setting aside exparte decree with condonation of delay on 18th November 2004. This application for condonation of delay was allowed and hence, the present revision. - 2 - 2. The reason given by the respondent for condonation of delay was that she engaged one advocate by name Abhay Gosavi to represent her in the suit and said advocate instructed that he will look into the matter and it is not necessary for her to attend the dates and she should attend the Court as and when he informs her. It is further case of the respondent that after receipt of notice in execution proceeding, she went to the house of her advocate, where she learnt that advocate Gosavi is expired three years back. 3. It is true that respondent as well as her advocate remained absent and therefore, exparte decree was passed. However, the respondent cannot be punished for the fault of her advocate, especially when her advocate instructed that he will look into the matter and she should attend the proceeding as and when required. The trial Court after considering evidence found that sufficient cause is shown, and therefore, condoned the delay. The Apex Court in – Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee & Ors. [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1336] held that when the subordinate Court in exercise of discretion condones the delay, that decision cannot be held as involving questions of jurisdiction i.e. questions regarding the failure to exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the - 3 - decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of - V. Pankajakshi Vasudevan & ors. Vs. Jayant J. Patwardhan [ 2006(1) AIR Bom R. 513] and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of - Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal & Anr. Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare [2007(2) ALL MR 608]. In both the matters delay was not condoned by the lower Courts and the High Court refused to exercise jurisdiction. Thus, the ratio laid down in the abovesaid two decisions, relied upon by the applicant, cannot be made applicable to the present facts and circumstances. No interference in the impugned order is called for. In the result revision is dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]