1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.296 OF 2009 Yasin Kamruddin Khan ..Appellant versus Bholanath A. Tiwari & Others ..Respondents Mr.Prakash Patil for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2009. P.C: 1. The appellant had instituted Suit No.8675 of 1989 in the City Civil Court, Bombay. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 5.12.2005. The appellant took out Notice of Motion No.285 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 6.12.2005. The said motion came to be dismissed on 6.2.2009. Against the said order dated 6.2.2009, the present Appeal from order is filed. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Patil. Perusal of the order goes to 2 show that the appellant could not serve defendants except the defendant Nos.5 and 9. This, Court had given opportunity to the appellant to show whether the defendants other than defendant Nos.5 and 9 have been served. Learned Advocate Mr.Patil could not show that the defendants other than defendant Nos.5 and 9 were served. If this is the position, the notice of motion has been rightly dismissed so far as defendants other than defendant Nos.5 & 9. To that extent dismissal of the notice of motion is proper. In so far as the dismissal of the notice of motion as against the defendant Nos.5 and 9 is concerned, it is required to be mentioned that the suit came to be dismissed on 5.12.2005. According to the appellant, he gathered the information about it on 5.12.2005 itself. However the notice of motion was taken out on 24.1.2006 and the point of limitation was raised before the learned Judge of the City Civil Court as regards taking out of the Notice of Motion. That has been accepted by the learned Judge and in my view the learned Judge 3 was right because there is no explanation coming forth as to why the notice of motion was taken out beyond the period of limitation particularly when the appellant knew about the dismissal of the said notice of motion on the very same day. Even otherwise, the appellant has not prayed for condonaton of delay and other related prayers in the notice of motion. Though this may sound little technical, the appellant has not taken proper care while filing the motion and as a result of that the notice of motion is dismissed. I do not find any merits in the appeal in as much as the appellant has not been able to make out the case that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was wrong in dismissing the motion. Hence the order. ORDER Appeal from Order is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)