1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 27/4/2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order Notice of Motion No.1840 of 2010 filed by the Petitioners who are the original Defendants in Short Cause Suit No.2987 of 2002 came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details a few facts can be stated thus:

The Respondents have filed Short Cause Suit No.2987 of 2002 for injunction. Suffice it to say that the said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 23/2/2005 on account of noncompliance by the Plaintiffs in the matter of service of writ summons. It appears that for some reason, the application for restoration was not made by the Plaintiff, and was ultimately made in March 2010 by filing Notice of Motion No.845/10 for restoration. The said motion was served on the Defendants with a covering letter that the same would appear on board on 9/4/2010. The defendants and their lawyer were present in the court on 9/4/2010, but the board of the said Court was discharged, and the next date given was 26/4/2010. On the said day, the learned Judge did not sit, however against the Suit number of the present suit which was appearing at Sr.No.32 and against matters at Sr.Nos.31 to 36 the date 2/7/2010 was written. The Defendants went away in view of the fact that the next date was 2/7/2010. To the surprise of the Defendants, they received a letter dated 25/6/2010 from the Solicitors of the Petitioners stating that the said Notice of Motion No.845/10 was allowed on 11/6/2010. On receiving the said letter the Defendants made inquiries, and on such inquiries it was revealed to them that though the said Motion was adjourned to 2/7/2010 on 26/4/2010, it had thereafter appeared on board on 4/5/2010, and thereafter on 11/6/2010 on which dates they did not remain present as they were labouring under the impression that the said Motion would be heard on 2/7/2010. The said Notice of Motion came to be allowed on the said day i.e. 11/6/2010. Resultantly, the delay came to be condoned and the suit came to be restored to file.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Defendants filed Notice of Motion No.1840 of 2010 for setting aside the said order dated 11.6.2010 on the ground that in view of the fact that they were labouring under an impression that the said Notice of Motion No.845 of 2010 would be heard on 2/7/2010, they could not participate in the proceedings, resulting in the said proceedings being decided exparte against them. The said Notice of Motion No. 1840 of 2010 was opposed by the Plaintiffs by filing their reply. The learned Judge considered the said Notice of Motion filed by the Defendants, and as indicated above, by impugned order dated 27/4/2011 rejected the same. The Notice of Motion has been rejected on the ground that the Defendants ought to have made inquiries if there was some confusion. A finding was recorded by the trial Court after observing that looking to the board of the said day i.e. 26/4/2010 and the dates written against the suit of the Plaintiffs and other matters appearing from Sr.Nos.31 to 36, there is sufficient reason for some confusion. The Court thereafter has also observed that since the order passed in Notice of Motion No.845 of 2010 has been set aside and the suit was restored and Plaintiff has deposited the cost of Rs.5,000/, the relief sought by the Defendants could not be granted. The trial Court further observed that the bracketing the group of cases by the Sheristedar which include the suit in question is at the most a technical error and should not be highlighted and capitalized to drag the matter back.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons mentioned in the impugned order.

6. It is required to be noted that as observed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, that in so far as the suit in question which was appearing at Sr.No.32 on the