- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4803 OF 2007 ... M/s.Fulchand Hazarmal & Co. ...Petitioner v/s. Shri Champalal Khimraj Malesha ...Respondent ... Mr.R.N.Sanghavi for the Petitioner. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 29-1-2007 and 3-3-2007 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pune in Civil Revision Application No.29 of 2005. - 2 - 2. The order dated 29-1-2007 was passed by the court dismissing the revision against the non-applicant No.2 because of failure of the Applicant/Petitioner to serve the non-applicant No.2. Application for review was taken out for review of that order. That application was rejected by order dated 3-3-2007. The court in the order dated 3-3-2007 has observed that since February, 2006 the Petitioner did not take any steps to serve the non-applicant No.2. The court has also observed that there is an interim order operating in favour of the Petitioner and therefore, he is interested in prolonging the proceedings. 3. Therefore, I asked the learned Counsel to point out me from the petition as to what he has said about the observation of the Court in the impugned order that the Petitioner was not able to serve the non-applicant from February 2006 i.e. nearly for a year. 4. The learned Counsel candidly stated that he has said nothing about it in the petition. He referred me to page 23 of the petition, which is an application for review. Perusal of that application - 3 - shows that except for saying that the notice has come back unserved and therefore he has applied for issuance of fresh process. No date on which the notice came back unserved is disclosed. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Petition is, therefore, rejected. ...