1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLN.NO. 67 OF 2001 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 5168 OF 1996 Harshad Jwethalal Shah ... Applicant/Petitioner (Org.Plff. in Suit No.5168 of 1996 & Resp.in CRA No.67/01). Versus Smt. Revaben Ajay Dedhia & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.Jitendra G. Damani, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Amit Gor, Advocate i/b. Mr. P.M.Shah, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th July, 2008. DATE: 28th July, 2008. DATE: 28th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an Application filed by the plaintiff/responxdent to set aside the Judgment of this Court dated 14.2.2008 allowing the Revision Application 2 No.67 of 2001 whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was set aside. In this Application, it is contended that the revision application had come on board after 3-1/2 years. It is contended that after receipt of the notice from the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bombay on 3.5.2008, when the applicant’s Advocate went to the City Civil Court on 5.5.2008, he was shocked to see that the Civil Revision Application had appeared before this Court on 14.2.2008 and it was revealed that without giving any intimation or any opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the Revision Application was heard ex-parte and by one-sided Judgment and it was allowed by me. It is contended that Mr. P.M.Shah, Advocate, for the Revision Applicant/respondent in this Application had misled the Court and had taken advantage of absence of the Applicant’s Advocate. According to him, the matter was not even on board on 14.2.2008 for hearing of the matter and thus no opportunity was given to the applicant or his Advocate to argue the case. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the Order dated 14.2.2008. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the Civil Revision Application. The record reveals that on 5.3.2007, when 3 the matter was on board for hearing, the Advocate for the Revision Applicant, Mr. P.M.Shah, was present, but none was present for the respondent. On 23.3.2007 also it was on board and Mr. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, had appeared for the revision applicant, but none was present for the respondent. On 13.4.2007, Advocates for both parties were present, but the matter was adjourned for one week. The record reveals that when the matter came up on board on 25.4.2007, and again on 10.1.2008, the Advocate for the revision applicant was present, but none was present for the respondent. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 14.1.2008 for final arguments. The matter was taken up and on 16.1.208, arguments were concluded. At the time of hearing of the matter, neither the respondent in the Revision Application nor his Counsel was present. After conclusion of the arguments on 16.1.2008, Judgment was reserved and on 14.2.2008, the Judgment was pronounced. From this, it appears that from March 2007 to January, 2008, the Revision Application was on board on number of occasions, but the respondent and his Counsel were never present except on one date. There is no substance in the contention that on 14.2.2008, the matter was not on board for final hearing and inspite of that the matter was taken up ex-parte and the Judgment was delivered, because the arguments were already concluded on 4 16.1.2008 and the matter was reserved only for the Judgment. Therefore, there is no question of the matter coming on board on 14.2.2008 for final hearing. From this, it appears that the respondent and his counsel were totally negligent and careless. 4. Mr. Damani, the learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant concedes that he is regularly practising in the City Civil Court and also comes to the High Court. It indicates that he is not regularly practising in the high Court. If it is so, it is his fault. It is impossible to believe that he or his clerk were regularly watching the board of this Court. If they would be really careful, they could not remain absent on so many occasions. He contends that it will be in the interest of justice and equity to set aside the order. However, one cannot forget that for engaging a Counsel, particularly at a place like Bombay,, the party has to pay heavy amount of fee to the lawyer. If indulgence is shown to the party who is negligent in prosecuting the matter, it It may cause unbearable financial burden and inconvenience and injustice to the other side. 5. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I see no reason to review the order. 5 The Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)