( 1 ) sa368.98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 368 OF 1998 Laxman Govinda Mali .. Appellant Versus Dayaram Bankatlal Tiwari (Died) .. Respondent through L.Rs. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1/2. Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for respondent No. 1/3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20.07.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by Courts below that the appellant/plaintiff could not prove his case of fraud. The appellant/plaintiff came with a case that the respondent had filed Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 117 of 1990 for recovery of possession etc. in the Civil Court. He said that he received certain summons/notice from the Court’s Bailiff, but did not receive any annexures to it. He said thereafter that he made enquiry with the respondent and he said that he was misled into believing that the proceeding was innocuous etc. He said that in this way he was persuaded not to appear in the ( 2 ) sa368.98 suit and defend the suit. He said that the Court decreed the suit ex-parte. He said that his case was not considered on fact. It was observed by the Courts below that after appellant/ plaintiff received notice/summons from the Bailiff, he certainly took evasive steps and further held that this theory of his being misled was unbelievable. In view of this there is no substantial legal question of law arising in this appeal. 2. Before I conclude this order, I must mention that the appellant/plaintiff could have easily made an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside ex- parte decree in R.C.S. No. 117 of 1990, which was not done. I am not here to advise as to whether the appellant/plaintiff should take such steps now. 3. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUL11/sa368.98