1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.867/2007 SMT.LAXMI DINESH GADEKAR AND 2 OTHERS VS. M/S. M.K.MEHENDALE TRANSPORT PVT. LTD AND 4 OTHERS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.M.Gedam, Adv. for Applicant. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 8 th MARCH, 2010. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 292/2010 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This application is taken out for restoration of M.C.A.No. 867/2007 against Respondent No.5 and for permission to serve Respondent No.5 by publication. Perusal of the record shows that on 27 th March, 2008, the Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the M.C.A. No. 867/2007 against Respondent No.5 for want of prosecution as the applicants had not taken any steps for service upon Respondent No.5 within a period of one month from the notification of the matter on 25 th February, 2008. 2 The M.C.A sought to be restored was filed under Section 24 of C.P.C for transfer of proceedings from Raigad to Yavatmal. It was filed in the year 2007 and remained pending for non service against respondent No.5. In the present application, the applicants claimed that there counsel did not notice listing of the matter in the notification due to oversight. According to them, the learned counsel realized dismissal of the application against Respondent No.5 for the first time when the matter was placed on the board on 19 th January, 2010. The application is, however, silent as to why no steps had been taken by the applicants for service upon respondent No.5. Even if the learned counsel for the applicants were not to notice that the matter was notified on 25 th February, 2008, for taking steps against Respondent No.5, it is expected of him to take steps towards service in the usual course of attending to the matter. Not taking any steps whatsoever in the matter for almost 3 years is gross negligence in prosecuting the proceedings. For such gross negligence, there is no explanation offered whatsoever. Hence, the application is dismissed. M.C.A. NO. 867/2007 This application is taken out for transfer of Application No. 62/1991 from the Motor Accident 3 Claims Tribunal, Raigad to the Court at Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. Since the application is dismissed against one of the respondents i.e. respondent no.5, it cannot survive against the other respondents. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. JUDGE. Rvjalit