: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2582 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2582 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2582 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.3002 OF 2002 SUIT NO.3002 OF 2002 SUIT NO.3002 OF 2002 Ms.Parvati Dattatraya Gandhe .. Plaintiff. Versus Mr.Laxman Rangya Koongari .. Defendant. None for the plaintiff. Mr.P.D.Gharge for defendant in support of notice of motion. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 21st October, 2008. DATE : 21st October, 2008. DATE : 21st October, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This court by order dated 27.10.2004 passed in summons for judgement No.166 of 2003 directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 lac within 8 weeks from the date of the order. The defendant could not deposit the said amount within the said period. Hence, he had taken out Motion No.291 of 2005. By order dated 22.7.2005, the defendant was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- first and then the motion was to be heard. Defendant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 29.7.2005 and complied with the order dated 22.7.2005. While the said Motion No.291 of 2005 was decided by this court on 9.8.2005 and balance of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be deposited on or : 2 : before 5.9.2005. The defendant complied with that order and deposited Rs.50,000/- on 1.9.2005. Xerox copies of the 2 receipts issued by this office were shown to the court. This goes to show that the defendant complied with the first order dated 27.10.2004 on account of order dated 9.8.2005. 2. My attention was drawn to order dated 17.8.2005 by which this court had passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) for not complying with the order dated 8.2.2005. 3. When this court had granted time to the defendant to deposit balance of Rs.50,000/- by order dated 9.8.2005, the defendant could not be termed as a defaulter on 17.8.2005 and hence such an order could not have been passed. It is clear that order dated 17.8.2005 came to be passed as a result of some mis-conception of facts and that the argument advanced by learned Advocate for the defendant that order dated 17.8.2005 deserves to be set aside is required to be accepted. Hence the order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R : 3 : i) Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). ii) Suit is restored to the file of this court. The defendant has already filed written statement. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. iv) If the amounts which are already deposited by the defendant are not invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank, Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to invest the 2 amounts, namely, Rs.50,000/- each in fixed deposit, initially for a period of 6 months and to renew the same from time to time. 4. Suit stands adjourned to 15.12.2008 for framing of issues. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)