C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) ADMITTED. Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala appears and waives service of admission on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against an order passed in Misc. Civil application No. 1431 of 1995 in Civil Revision Application No. 1229 of 1982. ( 3 ) THE appellant was the original petitioner, who had filed the above Civil Revision application in this court under the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 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. ( 4 ) 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 his legs and hence, he could not make 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. ( 5 ) WHEN Misc. Civil Application was placed before the court, the order was not pronounced at once. CAV order was pronounced on 10th April, 1996, wherein it was mentioned that the Revision Application was dismissed for default on 13th September, 1995, whereas in Misc. Civil Application for restoration, it was mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy and was on his legs in some other court on 11th September, 1995, which date had no relevance. As there was no explanation for remaining absent on 13th September, 1995, no order could be recalled and MCA was rejected. It is against the said order that the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed. As there was no explanation for remaining absent on 13th September, 1995, no order could be recalled and MCA was rejected. It is against the said order that the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed. ( 6 ) WHEN the matter was placed for admission, the court asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how a Letters Patent Appeal would lie. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in MCA can be said to be "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Bombay, applicable to Gujarat and hence, letters Patent Appeal would be competent. The court issued notice and today we have heard the parties. ( 7 ) MR. Vakil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main matter i. e. Civil Revision Application was not against an interlocutory order under Sec. 115 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but was against a final order passed under the Bombay rent Act. He submitted that thus the decision was a final decision. When Revision application, which was filed under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act was placed before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not remain present and it was dismissed for default. Hence, an application was filed under the provisions of rule-9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that an order passed by a learned Single Judge of a High Court rejecting the application is held to be "judgment" within the meaning of Clause -15 of the Letter Patent. For this argument, reliance was placed on a binding decision of a Division Bench of High Court of bombay in Mohanlal Bechardasd vs. The Bombay Life Assurance Co. and Ors. , AIR 1950 Bom. 355, and also on a decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Gaurilal Mitra vs. Sm. Hara Sundari Paul, AIR 1974 Cal 331 . In the above referred two cases, it was held that where an application under Order IX, Rule-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed by a Single Judge of a High Court, such order is "judgment" and an appeal would lie against such order. ( 8 ) IN view of the legal position, in our view, Letters Patent Appeal would be competent and maintainable. ( 8 ) IN view of the legal position, in our view, Letters Patent Appeal would be competent and maintainable. ( 9 ) COMING to the merits of the matter, it was submitted by Mr. Vakil that Civil revision Application was dismissed for default on 13th September, 1995 and Misc. Civil application was filed for recalling that order and for setting aside the order of dismissal for default. Due to bonafide mistake and/or over-sight, instead of mentioning 13th september, 1995 in Misc. Civil Application, the date which was mentioned was llth september, 1995. It was a mistake and the learned counsel was busy on 13th september, 1995. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, therefore, sufficient cause is made out. Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Misc. Civil Application is granted; the order of dismissal of revision application for default is also set aside. The learned Single Judge will now decide the main matter in accordance with law. We are not observing anything on merits and as and when the matter will be placed before the learned Single Judge, it will be decided strictly on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. .