LAWS(GJH)-1997-9-36

MOHMED USUF DAUDBHAI Vs. MOHAMADBHAI KARIMBHAI MANSUR

Decided On September 22, 1997
MOHMED USUF DAUDBHAI Appellant
V/S
MOHMADBHAI KARIMBHAI MANSUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The appellant was the original petitioner, who had filed the above Civil Revision Application in this Court under the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). When the Revision Application was called out for hearing on 13th September 1995, none was present on behalf of the parties. The learned single Judge, therefore, dismissed the Revision Application on the ground that he did not find any justification for the absence of the learned Counsel. In other words, the Revision Application was "dismissed for default" and Rule was discharged.

(3.) When the learned Counsel came to know that the revision application was "dismissed for default" he filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1431 of 1995. It was stated in the said application that the counsel was engaged in another court, he was on arrangement for getting the matter mentioned. A prayer was, therefore, made to restore Civil Revision Application to file by setting aside the order of dismissal for default and to decide the matter in accordance with law.