( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2010 Vijay Bulchand Tekwani PETITIONER VERSUS Central Bank of India & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.N. Kutti, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The service of process on three (3) legal representatives of deceased opponent No. 3, namely, opponents No. 3A, 3B and 3C was allegedly effected by sending notices through registered post. An affidavit of service was filed vide Exh-99. The Debts Recovery Tribunal accepted the affidavit and proceeded further on assumption that there is due service. The petitioner is original opponent No. 2. He filed an application ( 2 ) (Exh-101) seeking direction that appropriate steps shall be taken by the Bank to effect proper service and that affidavit about the service be not accepted. The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the application. 3. The petitioner is not adversely affected by the impugned order. The concerned legal representatives of deceased opponent No. 3 may have objection, if the service is improper but that the present petitioner cannot challenge such service during said proceedings. Mr. Kutti submits that the burden of huge amount is likely to be foisted on the petitioner. It is important to notice that the decree may be joint and several and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved due to improper service on other legal representatives of deceased opponent No. 3. No case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp4891-10 ( 3 )