WP. 3543-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3543 OF 2011 Gopal Mahadeo Karve ...Petitioner Vs. Smt. Anjana Devi Sunderlal Singhvi (Jain) ...Respondent *** Mr. A. S. Rao, for the Petitioner. Mr. Maravoor Wamorker i/b Marvoor Wamorkar & Co., for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JULY 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner is original plaintiff and respondent is original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground of non-user and change of user of the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, defendant was served by publication, after several attempts were made to serve the tenant. The exparte decree was passed and pursuant to the said exparte decree, possession was also taken by the plaintiff. Thereafter the tenant filed an application under Order 9, Rule WP. 3543-11 - 2 - 13 of the Civil Procedure Code and it was contended that summons was not served by the plaintiff. The trial court after after perusing the evidence on record gave a finding that a summons was not duly served and set aside the exparte decree. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. However, this appeal was also dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that several attempts were made by the plaintiff to serve the defendant/tenant and the bailiff thereafter affixed the summons on the shop of the defendant and thereafter summons was sent by R.P.A.D., though the R.P.A.D. acknowledgment did not come back. Thereafter an application was filed for service of summons by publication and accordingly, the notice was published in the newspaper, pursuant to an order passed by the court and thereafter exparte decree was passed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the various orders passed by the trial court on the applications for service of summons. He submitted, therefore, that both the courts below had not taken into consideration this factual aspect and therefore, these orders were liable to be set aside. He also invited my attention to the roznama of the trial court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the WP. 3543-11 - 3 - respondent submitted that both the courts below had given a finding that report of the bailiff should not be relied upon. He also invited my attention to the finding of both the courts below that R.P.A.D. notice was not sent by the plaintiff. 5. In my view, taking into consideration the cogent reasons given by both the courts below and the findings recorded by the lower court that suit summons was not served, it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the lower courts while exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]