ORDER

1. Notice on Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6 to 8 have been served. The dasti service on Respondents 3 and 5 shows that they have received the notice. Postal endorsement on notices, when sent through court were returned with endorsements "left, not known". Since dasti service has been served on them, notices now are served on all respondents but none is appearing for them nor they appear in person.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 10-3-1993 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in CRA No. 572 of 1992. From the record, it would appear that one Ishwar Das Gajbi filed Civil Suit No. 89 of 1985 after Civil Suit No. 82 of 1983 for eviction of the appellants was filed. When the suits were part-heard on 20-2-1992, the counsel for the appellant reported no instructions under Exhibit 116. Consequently, they were set ex parte. They filed application Order 9 Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte order, which the trial court dismissed by order. dated 27-4-1992. On revision, it was confirmed.

4. Shri Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the appellants were diligent in prosecuting the suits. The counsel had wrongly reported