1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 499 /2009 (M/s Hemani Group of Company vs. Dattatraya Wandhre ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr R.L. Khapre, Adv.for petitioner Mr Atul Pande, Adv.for Respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 07 th July , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the common order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 4.12.2006, as also the judgment passed by the 6th District Judge, Nagpur on 20.12.2008 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.12.2006. 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of both the judgments, it is clear that the Courts did not commit any error in holding that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex- parte judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. The Courts rightly followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2002(1) Sclae 87 and that of this Court reported in 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. Page 756 to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner. The judgment reported in 2002 (4) Bom C.R. page 327 and relied on by 2 the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. 4. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to file yet another application for setting aside the exparte decree dated 20.10.2005 by complying with the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1887 cannot be considered by this Court as the said issue does not arise for consideration while testing the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order. 5. Since the Writ Petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare