: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2007 M/s.Sujeer Properties ....Applicant V/s. M/s.Harsukhlal G. Mehta ....Respondent Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Maravoor Wamorkar & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.R.A. Thorat with Mr.R.M. Haridas for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. Although Mr.Godbole’s submission is not without force on merits, I am not inclined to interfere in this Civil Revision Application. It is true that the decree was passed on 10.3.2005 and that prior thereto the Respondent had knowledge of the proceedings. This is evident from the fact that their accountant had appeared on 21.11.2004. Thus it does appear that the Respondent had knowledge of the fact that the summons had been served in September, 2004. However, both the Courts had found that reasonable cause has been made out. I do not intend interfering with the exercise of discretion of both the Courts in this Civil Revision Application. : 2 : 2. The application was maintainable under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the fact that the Defendants had not appeared. The representative/accountant had appeared. That is not the same as the Defendant appearing. 3. Even on the question of limitation, I do not find any substance in Mr.Godbole’s submission in view of the explanation to Article 123. 4. However, in the facts of the present case, the learned Judges ought to have put the Respondent to terms. 5. In the circumstances, the following order is passed :- (i). The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. However, the Respondent shall pay the costs of the application through-out fixed at Rs.20,000/- within eight weeks from today. (ii). Mr.Thorat is agreeable to the evidence being recorded on commission. : 3 : (iii). This order shall remain stayed for a period upto and inclusive of 14.7.2008.