1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.37 of 2010 (Ramchandra s/o Ganpat Gedam v. Waman s/o Kashiram Ramteke) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri N.S. Ta.male, Advocate for Applicant. Shri P.G. Bapat, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 23 rd August, 2010 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 5-12-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Arjuni/Mor, thereby allowing Misc. Judicial Case No.1 of 2008 filed by the respondent under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that there was a discrepancy in the surname of the respondent. It has also recorded a finding that the respondent was not served through the Bailiff, but the notice was sent by RPAD. The Trial Court has also recorded a finding that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent deliberately avoided the service of summons. Neither the Postman nor the Bailiff has been examined. On the basis of these findings, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code has been allowed by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there 2 was no need for the applicant to examine the Postman or the Bailiff and that the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application on the ground that neither the Postman nor the Bailiff was examined. On going through the order impugned in this civil revision application, it is apparent that there are other reasons recorded for allowing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. In view of this, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl