-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Suit No.520 of 1990 M/s Trans Asia Metal Decorators Ltd. ..Plaintiffs vs. India Steamsbhip Co.Ltd. ..Defendants Mr.Y.D.Dalvi i/b Mr.S.S.Pakale for plaintiffs Mr.I.A.Bootwala i/b M/s Bootwala and Co. for defendant. Suit No.537 of 1990 M/s Trans Asia Metal Decorators Ltd. ..Plaintiffs vs. India Steamsbhip Co.Ltd. and another ..Defendants Mr.Y.D.Dalvi i/b Mr.S.S.Pakale for plaintiffs Mr.I.A.Bootwala i/b M/s Bootwala and Co. for defendant. Ms.Priti Shah i/b Mulla and Mulla for defendant no.2. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 9th February, 2009 9th February, 2009 9th February, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Suit No.537 of 1990 is not on board but mentioned by the learned Advocates. The said suit no.537 of 1990 is, therefore, taken on board. 2. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs have submitted that by his letter dated 20th January, -2- 2009 he has informed the plaintiff that the above suit nos.520 of 1990 and 537 of 1990 are ready for evidence and final disposal. The learned Advocate has also informed the plaintiffs that on 19th January, 2009 this Court had framed the issues and directed the plaintiffs to produce the original documents and oral evidence in support within 7 days therefrom i.e. on or before 27th January, 2009. By the said letter the learned Advocate also requested the plaintiffs to contact him urgently for taking appropriate steps. It is also recorded by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs that if the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suits they should give written instructions to the said Advocate for the plaintiffs. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has also brought to the notice of this Court that the packet containing the said letter has come back with the remarks "party not available". The said packet containing the letter dated 20th January, 2009 which is received back is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 3. In view of the above, it is clear that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the -3- suits. The plaintiffs are, therefore, not in touch with their Advocate despite having shifted from their premises. In view thereof, both the suits are dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)