{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4955 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.65 OF 2009 Sow Kanchan Shailendra Dave APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Dilip Jugalkishor Jaiswal & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.R.Chhallani, Advocate for applicant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 13th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application the applicant has prayed for substitute service on respondent No.3 on the same address, as though the notice is returned back with a remark that the address is not correct, yet it is alleged that the respondent No.3 resides on the same address and the address given of respondent No.3 is a correct address. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. For the reasons stated in para 2 and 3 of the application, the application is {2} allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and “B(a)” and stands disposed of. Respondent No.3 to be served by Registered Post Acknowledgment. Report returnable on 15.06.2010. Interim relief, if any to continue till then. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca4955-10