1 CA No.14023/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14023/2010 ( 1. Sandip Mahendralal Shah and Another Vs. Sushikm Tatya Ohol and Ors.) IN CIVIL REVISION APPLN.NO.89/2009. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SG Bharuka, Adv. h/for Mr.RR Mantri, Adv. for Applicants; Mr. Sandeep S Deshmukh, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 28 th March, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) By present application, it is urged to re-call the order dated 9.3.2010 passed in CRA No.89/2009 and fix the matter for admission. 3) It is informed that notices of CRA were not properly served upon the applicants herein, viz. Sandip and Manish and consequently, the order of allowing the CRA deserves to be re- called. 4) With the assistance of both the learned Counsels, I have gone through the report of Bailiff. Initially he had gone to the residential addresses of the persons named in the notices, including the present applicants Sandip and Manish. – However, they were not found at the residential address. Consequently, the Bailiff had visited Jitendra Automobiles (Hero Honda showroom). These business activities, according to Mr.Bharuka, are indisputably own and carried by Sandip and Manish. It was at the said commercial place, Sharad Shah met and he has accepted the notices, informing the process server that these persons (Sandip and Manish) are his brother and 2 CA No.14023/2010 nephew and accepted the notices volitionally. He also confirmed to keep the served persons present in the Court. 5) Considering these aspects of the matter, it is difficult to conceive that there was no proper service. 6) That apart, I have gone through the order, it is not only based on absence of the respondents in the CRA (applicants herein), the Revision was allowed, but it was, based on conduct of present applicants Sandip and Manish, vis-a-vis, the record in – RCS No.516/1993 and also in Misc. Civil Application No. 106/2008 (moved before the learned District Judge at Ahmednagar), the revision was allowed. 7) In the above set of fact, I do not see any error to re-call the order referred above. Consequently the application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/