1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.S; 10846, 10847, 10869 & 10870 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10846 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 10847 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 10869 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 10870 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Shinde for Petitioner, Advocate Shri Kale for Respondent No.1, Advocate Shri Brahme for Respondent No. 2. Nobody appears for Respondent No.3 though served. 2. Contention is, petitioner/ defendant No. 2 is old, illiterate lady who could not understand implications of service of suit summons upon her. After the suit began, she got some information from other persons and hence contacted Advocate and then filed application. It is urged that, reason of collusion in between plaintiff and defendant No.2 putforth by the trial Court is irrelevant. Support is also being taken from the case reported at 1981 Bom. C. R. 875 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.S; 10846, 10847, 10869 & 10870 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. [Bansilal Mittal V/s J.R. Kraft Board Pvt. Ltd.]. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 plaintiff states that he has instructions neither to oppose nor to concede to the prayers in the petitioner. Advocate Brahme for Respondent No.2 is opposing the prayers. 4. The perusal of application as moved itself shows that on one hand Petitioner/ defendant No.2 claims ignorance of English language as also proper understanding of Marathi and on the other hand asserts that she was aware that she has perfected her title by adverse possession. The judgment (supra) on which reliance is placed, considers the question of permitting defendant to participate in proceeding after the suit was closed for judgment. The judgment of Honourable Apex Court reported at A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993 has been considered in 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.S; 10846, 10847, 10869 & 10870 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. that Judgment by learned Single Judge. The issue considered there is totally different. This Court has to find out whether application of mind by trial Court while holding that reason given by petitioner/ defendant No.2 is not sufficient, is proper or not. 5. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is, therefore, rejected. However, in the circumstances of the case, petitioner/ defendant is given liberty to assail the said order after final adjudication of suit if occasion therefor arise. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:17/01/2011. ans/10846