- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. SUIT NO.2911 OF 1984 M/s.Shree Sainath Construction Co. ...Plaintiffs vs. Rose Catharine D’souza & Ors. ...Defendants --- Mr.Tushar P.Gujjar i/b. Mahimtura & Co.,for Plaintiffs. None for Defendants. --- CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 15th December,2008 15th December,2008 15th December,2008 P.C.:- 1. This is a suit claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 9.1.1981. Suit was filed in this Court on 17.4.1984. From the record it appears that no written statement is filed. However, the plaintiffs have also not instructed their Advocate to apply for an ex-parte decree during last 24 years. Neither is the specific performance claimed nor is the alternative relief. When the matter was placed before me on the earlier occasion, the plaintiffs’ Advocate sought time to take instructions. After the - 2 - adjournment was granted, it is stated that the Advocates have addressed a letter which has been despatched Under Certificate of Posting and even by Courier and by RPAD, but it is reported that the plaintiffs are not available on the address stated in the plaint. In my view, it will not be proper to adjourn the matter when it is pending for last more than 24 years. When the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting their claim and are not contacting their Advocate despite the fact that the defendants did not come forward to defend the suit, then Court cannot assist such litigants. Suit is therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)