1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1247 OF 2001 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1247 OF 2001 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1247 OF 2001 Ramchandra Baburao Jadhav, ) Age Adult, Occupation ) Agriculturist, Residing at ) Baramati, District Pune. ).. Applicant (Org. Plaintiff) Versus 1. Shivaji Ramchandra Dhumal ) Age Adult, Occupation ) Agriculturist, Residing at ) Veer, Taluka Purandar, ) District Pune. ) 2. Pune District Land Development ) Bank, through its Branch Manager) Lasurne Branch, Taluka Indapur ) District Pune. ).. Respondents (Org.Defendants) Mr. M.D.Molgi, Advocate, i/b. Mr. S.M.Oak,Advocate, for 2 the applicant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 29th February,2008. DATE: 29th February,2008. DATE: 29th February,2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision-applicant. None for the Respondents, though served. Perused the record. 2. To state in brief, the present applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1982 against the respondents seeking specific performance of the contract for sale of certain agricultural land. Ex-parte decree in that suit was passed on 6.3.1987. On 26.2.1988, respondent No.1 filed Misc. Civil Application No.5 of 1988 under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree mainly on the ground that the suit summons was never served on him and the plaintiff had played fraud, had misled the Court and had obtained ex-parte decree against him. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court 3 accepted the plea of defendant No.1-respondent and set aside the ex-parte decree in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1982 and restored the suit to the file. Being aggrieved by that order, the original plaintiff has preferred the present Revision Application. 4. The impugned order reveals that copy of the suit summons was not found on the record and thus there was no record to show that the suit summons was, in fact, served on the defendant No.1. The trial Court also noted that in the Roznama dated 26.8.1986 about service of the suit summons, there was overwriting and the said overwriting was not initialled by the Presiding Officer of that Court and that created doubt about correctness of that Roznama. In view of this, he came to the conclusion that the suit summons was not in fact served on the defendants. The learned trial Court also noted that Regular Civil Suit No.78 of 1988 was filed by one Suman Dhumal claiming declaration that the ex-parte judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1982 filed by the present applicant was not binding on her because in that suit, the parties were not duly served. Respondent No.1 - Shivaji was defendant No.1. He also supported Suman Dhumal and claimed that he was not served. That suit was decreed and the plea taken by the plaintiff - Suman and the defendant No.1 - Shivaji was 4 accepted. Besides, it was declared that the plaintiff therein was entitled to certain share in the property. Against that judgment and decree, the present applicant had preferred Civil Appeal No.77 of 1996. That Appeal was partly allowed only in respect of calculation of shares of the parties, but the appellate Court also found that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1982 was not binding on the Plaintiff - Suman. These aspects were also considered by the trial Court while allowing the application of the defendant-respondent No.1 under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. 5. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, it is impossible to find any fault in the impugned order. 6. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)