1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.995 OF 1988 Balmukund R. Pande .. Plaintiff Versus Chhotelal R. Tiwari & Anr. .. Defendants None for parties. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11th November 2008 P.C. . Plaintiff’s Advocate has expired and, thereafter, the Court directed notice to be issued to plaintiff. It appears that the notice was sought to be served on the plaintiff at the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. Notice, however, could not be served on the plaintiff at the said address because, although the property is correctly identified, the room number and floor number was not mentioned in the notice. Plaintiff has given the 2 same address as was mentioned in the notice. That the address finds place even in the verification to the plaint. Plaintiff’s Advocate has expired and plaintiff has not bothered to proceed with the suit despite written statement being filed, as early as in 1989. It will not be possible to effect service of notice through the Registry unless the plaintiff furnishes further details with regard to his address. The matter has repeatedly appeared before this Court from September 2008. In these circumstances, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)