1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL St. NO. 18016 OF 2008 Mrs. Sheela Sushilkarmar ........Applicant versus Municipal Corporation of Pune & ors........ Respondents. Mr. A.M. Joshi adv. for the Applicant Mrs. S.Y. Bangwala i/b S.M. Gorwadkar adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: 1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present respondent no.2 was proceeded ex-parte before the trial court as he did not appear despite service. It is also pointed out that the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been deleted from the arrey of respondent. According to the appellant, notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for demolition of the premises is the subject matter of the suit and the present appeal. In this fact situation, it is stated that the report of the bailiff of the court who had tried to serve respondent no.2 indicates that he has left the premises about five years back. No address is available with the present applicant. Hence a prayer for effecting service by substitute service is made. In the result substitute service as 2 contemplated by Order 5 Rule 20 is permitted. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)