: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.762 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3307 OF 1989 Mahendra P. Shah ....Plaintiff V/s. Canara Bank & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the Plaintiff. Ms.Sumedha Rao for Defendant No.3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008. P.C. : 1. By this Chamber Summons, Defendant No.3 seeks a dismissal of the suit on the ground that the writ of summons has not been served on him. 2. The suit was filed on 7.11.1989. Only Defendant No.1 appeared on 8.11.1989. Through the office of Sheriff, writ of summons was sought to be served by R.P.A.D. It was submitted that as the position was in 1989 the Sheriff could not have served the Defendants by R.P.A.D. That however is a technical lapse for which I am not inclined to dismiss the suit. 3. Nor do I find any negligence on the part of : 2 : the Plaintiff. For instance in the order dated 12.11.1998 restoring the suit which had been dismissed for default, the appearance of the advocate was shown for all the Defendants. Even assuming that this appearance was wrongly shown, the Plaintiff could not be faulted for presuming that the advocate had in fact appeared for all the Defendants. That order has not been set-aside nor sought to be corrected by Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 claims to have found out about the suit filed on 18.2.2006. However, even thereafter, no application has been made for having the order dated 12.11.1998 corrected. 4. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. Mr.Jamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff agrees in any event to serve a copy of the papers and proceedings on the advocate for Defendant No.3 within four weeks from today. Time to file the written statement is extended by a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the same by the advocate of Defendant No.3.