- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1028 OF 1993 Central Bank of India ... Plaintiffs vs M/s Somani & Sons & anr .. Defendants Ms.Poorvi Doctor i.b M/s M.K.Ambalal & Co for Plaintiffs ... CORAM: R.V.MORE,J DATED: January 6, 2010 P.C. 1. The above suit is filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. for recovery of an amount of Rs.54,027.85. The writ of summons was issued to the plaintiff on 7.4.1993. However, the plaintiffs have not filed service affidavit disclosing whether the writ of summons is served on the defendants or not ? The suit was placed on board for directions on 18.11.2009 on which date the court passed the following order : The Writ of Summons was issued. However, the record of the suit does not disclose whether the defendant is served or not. The plaintiff has not filed service affidavit in this regard. In that view of the matter, the sit deserves to be dismissed under the provisions of Rule 227 of the Bombay High Court O.S.Rules 1980. Ms Doctor appearing for the plaintiff submits that no objection is given by the plaintiff’s attorney to the plaintiff bank. She seeks some time to verify the position. Time is granted. S.O. 2.12.2009. - 2 - 2. Ms.Doctor learned counsel for the plaintiffs now submits that the attorneys of the plaintiffs have returned the entire papers with no objection to the plaintiff as far as back as on 14.1.2006. She further submits that by letter dated 20.11.2009 the plaintiffs were again requested to take appropriate steps to represent itself in the aforesaid suit. Copy of letter dated 20.11.2009 is taken on record and marked X for identification. Inspite of this letter, the plaintiffs have not given any instructions either to Ms.Doctor or to any other attorney. As stated above, record of the suit discloses that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps as contemplated under Rule 227 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Therefore, I have no alternative but, to dismiss the suit for non compliance of this provision. Suit accordingly stands dismissed. R.V.More, J - 3 -