wp5258-09.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5258 OF 2009 M/s.M.Kantilal & Co through its partner Mr.Babubhai @ Jashwant Manilal Shah .. Petitioner versus Pratibha Krishna Kulkarni .. Respondent Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the respondent. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 2nd MAY 2011. P.C.: . By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in the Regular Civil Suit No.607 of 1992, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside ex-parte order and judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Misc. wp5258-09.doc 2 Civil Appeal No.373 of 2004 thereby dismissing the appeal. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non user of the suit premises by the defendant. 2 It appears that inspite of making attempts to serve by the modes available under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the service being effected in accordance therewith, the petitioner did not appear and as such the suit came to be decreed ex-parte. An application came to be filed by the present petitioner for setting aside the said decree. The said application was rejected and appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed, hence, this petition. 3 Mr.Arjunwadkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a fraud is played by the respondent- plaintiff on the Court. He submits that though the respondent- plaintiff was aware about the address of the petitioner at Mumbai, the service is not effected on him at his Mumbai's address. 4 Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the wp5258-09.doc 3 suit summons were duly served on the defendant-petitioner in accordance with the requirement of the law. The scope of interference in the concurrent findings is very limited. Unless the finding is found to be perverse, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the plaintiff was aware about the address of the petitioner at Mumbai is concerned, the said condition is based upon the alleged letters of the petitioner below Exhibits 22 and 58. The learned Appellate Court by an elaborate reasoning has negated the said contention of the petitioner in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned order. On a pertinent query to the learned counsel as to whether the suit summons were affixed on the suit address or not, Mr.Arjunwadkar fairly conceded that as a matter of fact they were served on the suit premises. If inspite of the summons being served on suit premises i.e tenanted premises and that too on various occasions, if the petitioner does not notice the same, the ground of the plaintiff regarding non user of the suit premises by the defendant stands fortified. Even on that ground an intereference would not be warranted. wp5258-09.doc 4 5 No perversity is noticed in the well reasoned and concurrent orders of the Lower Court to warrant intereference. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly. (B.R.GAVAI, J)