JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This petition challenges two orders one passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee dated 11.1.2017 and the other passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur on 25.7.2018 confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, District Nagpur. These two orders record concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner failed to prove his contention that he was not duly served with the suit summons and, therefore, the exparte decree passed against him was liable to be quashed and set aside by invoking the power of the Court under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. I have also gone through the material placed on record in the nature of copies of the documents which were also considered by the Courts below. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below did not appropriately consider the effect of the documents placed before them by the petitioner. According to him, there was address proof submitted by the petitioner which clearly showed that his address was not of Resham Oli or Garoba Maidan but was “44 Wanjara Layout, Kamptee Road, Nagpur” and when the suit summons were never issued on the said address and were issued on the address pertaining to Resham Oli and Garobamaidan areas, they were bound to be returned unserved. This fact has not been considered appropriately by the Courts below and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner urges intervention of this Court. 7. Shri Shyam Dewani, learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the petition. He submits that when there are concurrent findings of facts and the view expressed by such findings of facts is plausible, this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction, must not interfere by substituting its view, just because it is possible. Of course, he also submits that in the present case even no other view is possible. 8. It is seen that the address proof submitted by the petitioner was in the nature of some documents issued by the LIC. The LIC policy was issued in the year 1987 and, therefore, these documents issued by the LIC would really be not relevant for deciding the question of the address of the petitioner in the year 2004-05 when the suit summons were issued. The LIC policy was issued in the year 1987 and, therefore, these documents issued by the LIC would really be not relevant for deciding the question of the address of the petitioner in the year 2004-05 when the suit summons were issued. The petitioner could have placed on record the relevant documents showing his address for the year 2004-05, in support of his contentions. But the petitioner has not done so. There was a bailiff report also which categorically said that the petitioner had left his shop situated in Resham Oli area about one and half year prior to the visit of the bailiff to that address. It was, therefore, necessary for the petitioner to have examined and questioned the bailiff on his report. But, the petitioner did not do so. The petitioner was given an opportunity for disproving the report of the bailiff but he did not avail of it. In these circumstances, I do not think that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below could be interfered with by this Court on the ground that they reveal patent illegality. On the contrary, these concurrent findings of facts appear to be the result of a view which logically arises from the facts established on record and as such, call for no interference from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is also significant to mention here that the agreement to sale was executed by this petitioner with the respondent on 17.3.1998 and in this agreement, no address of the parties has been given except for referring to them as residents of Nagpur. This agreement also shows that part of consideration was paid to the petitioner by a cross-cheque and it is submitted by Shri Shyam Dewani, learned counsel for the respondent, that this cheque, which was issued for Rs.25,000/, was encashed by the petitioner by presenting it to his Bank. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the amount of the cheque was credited to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner could have done great service to himself if he had produced on record the passbook of his said bank account which usually would contain the residential address of the account holder. The petitioner has not produced in evidence any such passbook. The petitioner could have done great service to himself if he had produced on record the passbook of his said bank account which usually would contain the residential address of the account holder. The petitioner has not produced in evidence any such passbook. This circumstance would only strengthen the conclusion already drawn by me in the matter. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discretion under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is required to be exercised liberally and suitable conditions can be imposed. He relied upon the case of Tea Auction Ltd. vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry and another, reported in (2006)12 SCC 104. There can be no doubt about the law so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. But, here is a case wherein the discretion has already been exercised by the Courts below concurrently by recording findings on facts that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner. Therefore, in my humble opinion, at this stage, it would not be possible for this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to substitute the discretion available to it upon a different consideration for the discretion already exercised in a lawful manner by the Courts below. There is no merit in the petition. 11. The petition stands dismissed. No costs. 12. Rule is discharged.