- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 728 OF 2009. SOKO BETU FOLKAR ALIAS SOKO BETU KHOLKAR ALIAS SOKO(DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S …...Petitioners. V/S SHRI SHRIPAD G. B HANDARI AND 13 ORS. …..Respondents. Mr. Arun Desa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. Tamba, Advocate with Mr. D. Zaveri, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th July, 2010. P.C. This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 14.6.2009 of the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Panaji, by which the learned Ad-hoc District Judge has dismissed an application dated 7.2.2008 for condonation of delay for filing an appeal against - 2 - ex-parte decree dated 24.2.1995. 2. The respondents had filed civil suit no. 218/1992/A for injunction simpliciter. The said suit was filed against Soko Betu Folkar and his wife Dropadi Soko Folkar. Both the defendants were duly served and on 6.11.1992; one Advocate Ms. Potekar appeared on their behalf and sought time to file reply/written statement but subsequently did not appear on 12.1.1993, as a result of which, order was made on the same day to proceed ex-parte against the said two defendants and subsequently the suit came to be decreed on 24.2.1995. The legal heirs of said Soko Betu Folkar and the said smt. Dropadi Soko Folcar filed an appeal against the said ex-parte decree dated 24.2.1995 and as it was filed with much delay of almost 13 years filed an application for condonation of delay stating that they came to know about ex-parte decree only on 15.1.2008. They contended before the learned District Judge that the signatures on the summons served on the said two defendants - 3 - were not those of their parents. That contention has been rejected by the learned District Judge by placing reliance on the case of Ramdas Srinivas Nayak (AIR 1982 SC 1249) and has accepted position that both the defendants were duly served with the summons for settlement of issues before the ex-parte order came to be made on 12.1.1993 and ex-parte decree on 24.2.1995. There were other submissions made which have been recorded by the learned District Judge. 3. Be that as it may, counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that since Advocate Ms. Potekar who had appeared on behalf of the defendants on 16.11.1992 had not turned up thereafter on 12.1.1993, the learned Civil Judge ought to have issued a fresh notice to the defendants to appear in the civil suit, considering the provisions of Order 9 Rule 6(c). I have perused the said provision. In my view there was no requirement in law that learned judge ought to have issued a fresh notice, once the defendants were duly - 4 - served and appearance on their behalf was put by Advocate Ms. Potekar. It may be true that Ms. Potekar had undertaken to file vakalatnama but the fact remains that both the defendants were duly served with summons and Ms. Potekar had appeared on their behalf, and their contention that defendants were not served has been rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. 4. Considering the facts of the case, impugned Oreer in rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be faulted with. There is no merits in this writ petition and consequently it is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn*