1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2527 OF 2010 (Noor Jahan Bano w/o Mohd. Iqbal vs. Dharamkumar Virumal Amarnani & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 03, 2010. Heard Ms. Khishti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri De, learned counsel for the respondents. The matter was heard on earlier occasion and the petitioner was given an opportunity to show her bonafides subject to further hearing. Ms. Khishti, learned counsel today states that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.4.5 lakh with the trial Court and also to stop construction undertaken only to show bonafide, provided the petitioner is given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. Shri De, learned counsel contends that the respondents are not accepting any such proposal because their suit for specific performance has been unnecessarily delayed for more than 3 ½ years. He points out that only reason given is of service of suit summons on a address alleging that the petitioner does not reside there. He has invited attention to a 2 subsequent agreement of sale executed in the year 2008 wherein the petitioner has disclosed same address. He further points out that the suit is for specific performance against defendant No. 1, who is son of present petitioner. During the pendency of suit, defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to his mother and brother and, therefore, they were subsequently added as party defendants. According to them, all this is going on in collusion to defeat the legal right of the respondents. The merits of the controversy show that only reason given by the petitioner is she is not residing on the address given in the suit and hence summons are not validly served. The documents produced along with affidavit of the respondents show that she has agreed to sell suit property to one P.R. Banjari and in that agreement, she has disclosed the very same address. Thus, it cannot be accepted that in 2006 she was not staying at that address. Not only this, the impugned order passed on 16.11.2006 and the application seeking setting aside of ex parte order was rejected. That order is sought to be questioned in present writ petition which is filed in 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as the counsel representing the petitioner stopped practice, the petitioner was under the impression that application under Section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code and application for setting aside ex parte order were both pending. 3 When the petitioner was already proceeded ex parte, I find that the reason is not convincing and in any case the trial Court has considered the necessary controversy and the petitioner is purchaser during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.