1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.207 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.941 OF 1988 M/s.Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. ....Appellant V/s. The Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai ....Respondent Mr.C. Ardeshir i/b Pardiwalla & Co. for the Appellant. Mr.U.J. Makhija i/b Motiwalla & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Respondent waives services. 2. At the request of the parties, we have heard this appeal finally at the admission stage. 3. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge exercising powers under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the Appellant/Defendant had not filed a written statement for nearly eighteen years. The Appellant did not appear 2 when the suit was heard and the matter proceeded in its absence. 4. Mr.Ardeshir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant stated that a reference had been made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The reference had been rejected. However, an appeal was filed before the A.A.I.F.R. and same is pending. Mr.Makhija stated that the documents in this regard have been perused by him and that the appeal before the A.A.I.F.R. when the impugned order was passed was pending and that it is pending even today. In the circumstances, the impugned order would have to be set aside. 5. The Appellant however, failed to appear before the learned Single Judge. It was the duty of the Appellant to inform this Court of the pending proceedings. By having failed to do so, it has put to the Respondent to unnecessary costs. 6. In the circumstances, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The Appellant shall however, pay the costs of this Appeal to the Respondent fixed at Rs.5000/- on or before 10.8.2009. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)