DEVYANI H MODY Vs. MARATHA SAHAKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for deletion of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Prayer granted.

(2.) RULE . The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 waives notice. By consent heard forthwith.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an application to the Co-operative Court No.1, Bombay alleging that it was an ex-parte order. It was her case that she was the estranged wife of respondent No.2 and the matrimonial proceedings are already going on between the parties. The flat is purchased by her and she is residing therein along with her daughter and son. The respondent No.2 is not at all concerned with it. She is also not concerned with the loan advanced to the respondent No.2 for the purpose of renovation of his clinic. She pointed out that in fact the summons was served upon her minor son, but she went to the Court and on that date she has engaged an Advocate. But the matter was adjourned. The Advocate also did not file his appearance and she was not aware about further proceeding in the matter. This came to be opposed by the Respondent No.1 on the ground that it should be treated that the summons was properly served. She was aware about the proceedings and hence it cannot be said that the proceedings were ex-parte in nature. It is contended that as no written statement was filed, in view of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the award was rightly passed.