1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2361 OF 2010 Smt. Savitrabai wd/o Sureshchandra Khatod .. PETITIONER VERSUS Kolilabai w/o nandlalji Chichani & others .. RRESPONDENTS Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Interlocutory order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on 22-2-2010 below exh. 52 in Regular Civil Suit no. 92/2008 is subjected to challenge in this petition by the petitioner / original plaintiff. 2 Suit is presented by petitioner / original plaintiff claiming partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. The suit came to be presented in 2008 and an ex-parte order against defendant nos. 17 to 20, 29 2 to 31 and 33 and 34 was passed by the court on 29-01-2009. It is the contention of the original defendants / respondents herein that the defendants were not served with the notice and there is defect in service. It appears that the notices issued through the advocate have been returned back with an endorsement by the postal authority. The packet sent to the defendants containing the notices bear an endorsement of the postman about the intimation given to the defendants. But according to the defendants they did not receive any intimation and had no knowledge about presentation of the suit. After they got knowledge, they presented an application for setting aside ex-parte order. Trial court on consideration of the application permitted the defendants to present written statement subject to cost of Rs.100/- and the ex-pare order passed on 29-1-2009 came to be set aside. 3 I have perused the order passed by the trial court and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel. It is noted by the trial court that the suit is for partition, separate possession and injunction against the defendants. Parties to the litigation are closely related to each other and further it also transpires that they did not receive the notice sent through the court. In this view of the matter, trial court has shown indulgence and 3 directed setting aside ex-parte order and permitted the defendants to file written statement. In my opinion, view adopted by the trial court is reasonable and proper. No interference is called for in the instant petition, in view of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of the petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp2361.10.odt