(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7177 OF 2009 Namdeo s/o. Dattarao Deshmukh, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wadi-Muktiyapur, .. Petitioner Post : Chikala, Taluka : Mudkhed, (Original District : Nanded. defendant no.4) versus 1. Maneji s/o. Raoji Panchal (Died through L.R.), 1/1. Gopinath s/o. Maneji Panchal, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Near Post Office, Mudkhed, Taluka : Mudkhed, District : Nanded. 2. Renukabai w/o. Nagnath Panchal, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Chikala, Taluka : Mudkhed, District : Nanded. 3. Baliram s/o. Nagnath Panchal, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. (2) 4. Rama s/o. Nagnath Panchal, .. Respondents Age : 28 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Agriculture, plaintiff & R/o. as above. Nos.2 to 4 - Original defendant nos.1 to 3. ) .......................... Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12th September 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mudkhed, below Exhibit 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2009, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside ex parte order and for permission to place written statement on record. 2. The plaintiff respondent no.1 has filed a suit against original defendant nos.1 to 3. for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. The petitioner was also subsequently impleaded as defendant no.4 in the said suit. After summons were served, the defendant nos.1 to (3) 3 filed their appearance and also resisted the suit of the plaintiff. However, in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, it would found that he had refused to accept the service and as such, the trial court passed an order proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, original defendant no.4. Thereafter, an application came to be filed for setting aside the said order. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Judge of the trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the suit summons were never served upon the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge of the trial court ought to have allowed the application and set aside the ex parte order. 4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Judge of the trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the Bailiff one Mr. Charles had filed an affidavit to the effect that when he went to serve the suit summons, the petitioner informed him that he will accept the suit summons after he consults his Advocate. The court has also relied on the statement of one Vithal Maroti Deshmukh, who had accompanied the Bailiff and acted as a Panch. The learned Judge of the trial court has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately avoided the service. It has been found that for six long years, the petitioner had chosen to remain silent and after six years, an application came to be filed. It has also been found that the petitioner (4) was having knowledge regarding pendency of the suit, inasmuch as, he was proceeding with the matters before the revenue authorities pertaining to revenue entries in respect of the suit land. 5. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7177