1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.207 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3905 OF 2009 ( Diwakar Maniram Sakharkar ..vs.. Smt. Sushiladevi Satnarayan Goenka and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the appellant, Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 30 th AUGUST, 2010 1. Heard. 2. Only contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant is that Rule 15 of Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Code will have to be applied in the instant case, instead of Rule 15 as framed in accordance with Bombay High Court Notification dated 1st October, 1983. We find that Rule 15 as framed in accordance with the Bombay High Court Notification shall apply insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned. The learned Single Judge with reference to the said provision and the factual aspect in the case has observed thus : “This provision has been revised by Bombay Amendment which stipulates that when the defendant cannot for any reason be personally served and he has no agent empowered to accept the service of the 2 summons on his behalf, service can be made on any adult male member of the family, who is residing with him. The report of the bailiff Narendra shows that he has effected service on son of the petitioner by name Rajesh. What transpired then is also deposed to by him and there is no cross examination about those developments. The facts on record through his evidence, therefore, show that at relevant time, the petitioner was reported to be out of station and was to return after 8 to 15 days. Son Rajesh volunteered to accept the summons by stating that he is a family member of the petitioner Diwakar, therefore, the summons was tendered to Rajesh. If this was to be refuted, it was necessary either for Diwakar or then Rajesh to enter witness box. Both have chosen not to enter witness box. No enmity between Diwakar and Rajesh is brought on record.” 3. We have no reason to differ with the said finding of fact. We find no merit in the letters patent appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma