1 WP 10255/2010 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10255 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. R.A. Thorat for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a builder who became the landlord by purchasing the suit property in the year 1988. According to the respondent no. 1 tenant, immediately after the purchase of the property, the petitioner and his hirelings started harassing her and therefore she filed a police complaint and thereafter a suit for declaration and injunction. In the suit, the petitioner appeared and filed the written statement. However, the petitioner remained absent on the 2 WP 10255/2010 date of hearing of the suit. The suit was heard exparte and the decree was passed. After the expiry of the period of limitation, the petitioner made an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for restoration of the suit by condoning the delay. The application was rejected and on appeal the decision has been confirmed by the appellate Court. That decision is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. The two Courts below have held that the petitioner failed to prove that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in making the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The finding recorded by the two Courts below is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)