1 Revn. Appln. No.604 of 2009 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2009 Shri Shamsuddin Babu Maner ...Applicant. v. Shri Allauddin N. Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Prashant S. Bhavake, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Plaintiff, who is the present applicant was the tenant of the defendants/respondents in respect of certain premises. He filed R.C.Suit No.908 of 1999 for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit premises on the basis of alleged agreement for sale dated 14.3.1990. Suit summons was not served on the defendants in person on the ground that defendants were not available at the given address. Suit summons was published in local newspaper 'Dainik Prabhat'. In spite of that defendants did not appear. Suit proceeded ex-parte and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Sale deed was got executed through the Court on behalf of the defendants. Defendants filed Miscellaneous 2 Revn. Appln. No.604 of 2009 Application No.56 of 2007 for condonation of delay of 1845 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree. It was contended that suit summons were never served. They never came to know about the filing of the suit. They came to know about the said decree when they received notice dated 2.1.2007 from the City Survey Office for mutation of the same property in favour of the plaintiff. Application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the application and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. That order is challenged in the present revision application. 3 The learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant vehemently contended that there was no justification for condonation of such a long delay of 1845 days, particularly when summons were served by the publication in the local newspaper. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that if the delay is not condoned, defendants would never get an opportunity to establish that the summons was not served and exparte decree was fraudulently obtained. In fact, it would be necessary to find out whether the defendants were avoiding service of summons and whether plaintiff had misled the Court in complaining that the defendants were avoiding 3 Revn. Appln. No.604 of 2009 service. It is also material to find out whether Dainik Prabhat is a newspaper which is generally read by the public in the city of Kolhapur or it is a paper which survives only on the publication of such notices or the Government advertisements. The learned counsel for the defendants pointed out that the plaintiff had issued the notice to the defendants about the same property prior to filing of the suit and that notice was received by the defendants. Later on, notice issued by the City Survey Office was also received by the defendants on the same address. He contends that if they could receive all such notices , there could be no reason for them to refuse suit summons and if the suit summons was not properly served that could be reason to set aside exparte decree and the stage to scrutinise that fact is yet to arrive. That stage could come only after the delay is condoned and if the delay is not condoned, defendants would never get opportunity to establish that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained exparte decree without proper service. Taking into consideration valuable rights of the defendants in the suit property, in my opinion trial Court was justified in condoning the delay. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 4 Revn. Appln. No.604 of 2009 4 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)