: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. 3449 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 3449 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 3449 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 1612 OF 1979 NO. 1612 OF 1979 NO. 1612 OF 1979 Randhir Singh Bhalla. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Neelkanth Tirth Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. D.V. Merchant, Sr. Counsel i/b. M/s. Shah & Sanghvi for the Plaintiff. Mr. P.M. Shah i/b. L.H. Rambhia for Defendant No.1 Mr. B. Upaddhyay i/b. Purnanand & Co. for Defendants 2 to 5. Mr. S.J. Popat i/b. K.T. Shah for Defendant Nos. 6 & 7. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 12TH 12TH 12TH NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . At the hearing of the Notice of Motion Mr. Merchant, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff on instructions states that the Plaintiff would delete Defendants 2 to 7 as party Defendants to the Suit at the risk of the Plaintiff. 2. In the light of this statement and when the Suit is being dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn against Defendants 2 to 7, no reliefs can be granted against them in the Notice of Motion and it is not necessary to grant any adjournment for filing reply nor is it necessary to hear any submissions on their behalf. :2: 3. Heard Mr. Merchant for the Plaintiff and Mr. Shah for the First Defendant. Perused the affidavit in support and reply. The only submission made by Mr. Shah is that the office Bearers of the First Defendant - Society are also senior citizens and it would be difficult for them to travel to Delhi. Further, he states that the Plaintiff has an establishment in Mumbai and he can very will travel to Mumbai and can receive medical attention in Mumbai. He submits that instead of Defendant No.1, their Advocate and representative so also Plaintiff’s Advocate travelling to Delhi, interest of justice would be sub-served if the Commission work is taken up at Mumbai. 4. Having perused the Motion and the affidavit, in my view, considering the age and ailment of the Plaintiff so also he being ready and willing to bear all costs, charges and expenses of the Commission as well as travelling and stay of the Defendants’ representative and their Counsel, interest of justice would be su-bserved if the Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Mr. Salil Shah, practising Advocate of this Court is appointed as Commissioner to record evidence of the Plaintiff at New Delhi. 6. In the peculiar facts of this case, it is directed that the Commissioner shall proceed with recording of :3: evidence in Suit No.1612 of 1979 before other Suits and shall endeavour and complete the said work within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. 7. At this stage, Mr. Shah prays for stay of this order, considering that the Suit is pending in this Court from 1979, and that the Plaintiff is aged 81 years and desires expeditious conclusion of the proceedings, the stay is refused. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)