1 908.cra597.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2011 Sukhdeosingh Shivraj Singh. ....Applicant. Vs. Shri Shrinath Dagdu Waghmare & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Navin Parekh a/w. Ms. Hetal Patel, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Dhirendra Gautam h/f. MHA Sayyid, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Parekh, Advocate for Applicant. The Trial Court has dismissed the Suit for eviction claiming a Decree on the ground of default. The Trial Court has held that the Notice of Demand dated 28/11/1995 was duly served, the Court has also recorded a finding that the Original Defendant sent a Money Order of Rs. 648/- bearing No. 1205 to 1654 dated 13/12/1995 to the Plaintiff which was returned by the Postal Authority with remark “not claimed”. It is not disputed that even if the notice of demand is deemed to be served, this tender will be within one month. Consequently, there would be no cause of action in 2 908.cra597.11 case this tender is held to be proved. The defence regarding payment of money order was specifically raised in the Written Statement, the employee of the postal department was summoned and examined and he specifically stated that the original record was destroyed as a result of which photo copies were marked in evidence. The Suit was accordingly dismissed on 28/6/2004. In Civil Appeal No. 706 of 2004 filed by the Plaintiff, the Appellate Court has held that there was no valid service of notice of demand. After recording this finding, the Appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court regarding filing of tender of Rs. 648/- within a period of one month and reasons for concurring the said findings are given in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court. 2. Assuming that the said finding of the Appellate Court regarding service of notice of demand is wrong, on the question of valid tender of the entire amount demanded by the Plaintiff and additional amount within one month there is a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be said to be perverse. No error of jurisdiction has been committed. Dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)