1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.38 OF 2004 ,With CA/4761/2004 & CA/14308/2010 SEEMA SHARAD MUTHA & ORS VERSUS EXCELLENT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ORS ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. RR Sancheti, Adv. h/for Mr. R R Mantri ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th DECEMBER,2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Perused the application. It is urged to re-call the order dated 20th April, 2007, which directed dismissal against the Respondent No.2. The application is moved purportedly on 18th October, 2010, without assigning proper reasons. The Court found, no steps are taken to effect service upon respondent no.2. Learned Counsel contends that the Bailiff tried to effect service upon Respondent No.2 by affixing a copy of notice at the residence of Respondent no.2. Learned Counsel also submits that the notice was purportedly sent by Registered post AD to Mr. Gandhi, advocate representing Respondent No.2, however, said notice has returned unserved. 2) The bailiff report dated 24.9.2004, to which reference is made, did not specify requirement. Thereafter, the applicant did not take steps for three years and even after the court specifically 2 asking to take steps to serve Respondent No.2 within two weeks. The applicant failed to comply with the court's order. I do not see any reason to re-call the order. Consequently, the CA No. 14308/2010 dismissed. 3) The Appeal from Order to be taken up for hearing on 15th December, 2011. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/