IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.D.Hombalkar for the appellant. Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent No.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 5th July, 2007 : 5th July, 2007 : 5th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The appellant, who is original defendant No.3, has preferred a Second Appeal as the Appellate Court by order dated 06/04/2005 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. 2. Admittedly, in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, though served, original defendant No.1 to 5, including original defendant No.3 ( 2 ) i.e. appellant, failed to appear. The suit proceeded ex-parte against them. The plaintiff lead evidence in support of his pleadings and based on that the suit has been decreed against defendant No.1. The trial Court has directed to execute the sale deed on the basis of agreement to sale dated 19/10/1994, on or before 29/04/1999. 3. Admittedly, there is no appeal preferred by defendant No.1. Admittedly, based on this decree, the sale deed, as directed, has been executed already within the specified period. 4. Admittedly, as there was no challenge raised by the contesting defendants on merits as well as on the ground of ( 3 ) service as contended by the appellant before the lower Appellate Court, the Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal rightly comes to a conclusion that there was a full opportunity given to the parties including the appellant i.e. defendant No. 3, however, they failed to appear and contest the proceedings at the relevant time. 5. The submission, therefore, that there was no proper service was also rightly rejected by observing that the service made by the first bailiff in the suit summons on the residence of the defendants was quite, proper, legal and correct. 6. For the reasons above, there is no case made out by the appellant and basically no substantial questions of law ( 4 ) involved, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In the consequence, the interim order dated 17/08/2005 passed in Civil Application No.1325 of 2005 is also stand vacated and the Civil Application is also disposed off. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.] V.MOHTA, J.] V.MOHTA, J.]