1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.993 OF 1983 The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. .. .. Plaintiff Versus Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Pvt.Ltd. .. Defendant Mr.D.G.Dhanure i/b. Juris Consultus for plaintiff Mr.Jesse Cornelions i/b. Gagrats for defendants CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : November 13, 2009. P.C.: 1] This matter was placed under the caption “For Commissioner’s Report”. 2] It is rather unfortunate that in a suit instituted by State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. In 1983, no progress has been made. Not a single witness has been examined till date. The record indicates that initially parties were absent. Subsequently, in the month of March 2006, they started appearing. With great difficulty the Court framed the issues and issued directions to file affidavit of documents and evidence. That 2 was not complied with in time. After compliance therewith, on 26th February 2007, this Court passed the following order:- “1. In pursuance of the order dated 13th February 2007 Counsel for the plaintiff tenders the documents along with the list. Documents and the list is taken on record. 2. Counsel for the plaintiff tenders affidavit of Megha Singh in lieu of examination in chief. The affidavit is taken on record as examination in chief. 3. By consent of the parties, Mr.Salim Shah, Advocate is appointed Court Commissioner for the purpose of recording the evidence in the matter. Court Commissioner shall first record the evidence by way of cross examination of P.W.1 and then record the evidence of the remaining witness of the plaintiff. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, he shall record evidence of the defendant and its witnesses. Court Commissioner shall record examination in chief on affidavits and ttheir cross examination in person. 3 Court Commissioner is accordingly authorised to receive and record the evidence and to fix the date, time and venue for the same. 4. Court Commissioner shall submit his interim report at intervals not more than 12 weeks, after examination of each witness is over and shall submit his final report after the entire evidence of all the witnesses. 5. The plaintiff and the defendants shall initially deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- each towards the fees and expenses of the Court Commission.” 3] It appears that on getting a Commissioner appointed the plaintiff did not do anything. This Court was constrained to record that after two years and three months, the Commissioner sent a letter to the Court pointing out that not even the initial fees have been deposited. The Commissioner had to approach the Court after which the Court granted time on conditions. However, the Commissioner, thereafter, intimated to the Court that he is not willing to act as a Commissioner for recording evidence in the suit and for good reasons, that the Commissioner, Mr.Salil Shah, Advocate came to be discharged. Thereafter, another 4 Commissioner was appointed by an order dated 7th July 2009. To enable him to record evidence, time has been extended. However, even before this Commissioner (Mr.Vinod Solanki), there is absolutely no progress. Beyond stating that they will now proceed, plaintiffs’ Advocate is unable to give any explanation for the alleged inability of plaintiffs to proceed to record evidence. The oral explanation is hardly satisfactory. This is a suit by a public body to recover public money. It is pending in this Court from 1983 and the manner in which the Public Body/ Statutory Authority is proceeding with its claim demonstrates that it is not acting diligently and with necessary expediency. Now again the time cannot be extended when such are the state of affairs and when the matter is pending for last 26 years before this Court. Resultantly and with great reluctance, I proceed to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)