:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2737 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 2737 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 2737 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2151 OF SUIT NO. 2151 OF SUIT NO. 2151 OF 1984 1984 1984 The Sangli Bank Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. M/s. Modern Industries & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. N.D. Yelkar for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 16TH 16TH 16TH DECEMBER 2008. DECEMBER 2008. DECEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is a Notice of Motion for restoration of a Suit filed by the Plaintiff - Bank which is a Private Sector Bank. The Suit is filed in the year 1984, it is dismissed in the year 1996 and the present motion is moved after a gap of more than 10 years. The order dismissing the Suit in default was passed on 15th April 1996. The present Notice of Motion is moved on 8th August 2006. 2. In the affidavit in support what is stated that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the order passed by this Court and they became aware of the same in the first week of August 2006. The earlier Advocate is blamed by the Bank for the dismissal in default. The affidavit in support is affirmed by the Law Officer of the Plaintiff - Bank. The Law Officer does not state that on what basis, the statement is made. There is no reference to any record maintained with regard to this Suit by the Bank, :2: leave alone personal knowledge, of the deponent. I enquired from the Advocate as to whether the Plaintiff has maintained any record which contains copies of the letters addressed by or to the Advocate, who is now sought to be blamed by the Bank, for dismissal in default. The Advocate presently appearing is unable to make any statement as to whether there was any correspondence exchanged or whether any record maintained in the Office of the Plaintiff. There is nothing on record which would indicate that the Bank was unaware of the pendency of the Suit and its dismissal in default in 1996 for nearly 10 years. Assuming that to be true, yet, this is not a case where a illiterate litigant or one who is unaware of legal procedures and who is requesting the Court for equitable and discretionary jurisdiction being exercised in his favour. All liberal principles, even if applied, it is not possible to accept the plea that the Bank having a full-fledged legal set-up was unaware of the pendency of the Suit for 22 years and even after its dismissal in default in 1996 was not informed for 10 years thereafter. These are events and facts clearly demonstrating utter negligence and inaction on the part of the Plaintiff - Bank. Such a litigant cannot be assisted by the Court. 3. In these circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)