dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4967 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4967 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4967 OF 2008 Ashok B. Kamble Petitioner Vs. Smt.Shakuntala S. Deshmukh & ors. Respondents Mr.Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd December 2008. : 3rd December 2008. : 3rd December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged two orders i.e. 16.01.2007 whereby his Special Civil Suit No.1568/1997 is dismissed for want of prosecution as the plaintiff not taken steps to serve defendant no.3. By another order dated 15.03.2007, his application for restoration of the Suit which was dismissed on 16.01.2007 in default was also rejected. The petitioner/plaintiff took steps on 16.03.2004 and 13.09.2005 for issuing summons to defendant no.3. There was no report received. Therefore, no further steps could be taken. Suit No.510/1997 was tried and directed to be heard along with this Suit. The Suit was filed by defendants, whereby the basic claim is possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. The plaintiff/petitioner is not taking any interest as ( 2 ) recorded by the Courts and delayed for one way or the other as he is not taking steps within reasonable time. Though initially the Suit was dismissed against defendants 1 and 3, but still plaintiff failed to take steps to serve the said defendants specially against defendant no.3. The other Suit filed by the respondent for possession against the plaintiff is delayed because the Court has already directed to try the same along with this Suit. The intention of the plaintiff is therefore not fair and bonafide. The plaintiff, therefore, one way or the other just want to delay the proceeding. However, the Suit against defendants 1 and 2 cannot be dismissed as they are already served. For want of service on defendant no.3 the Suit at the most be dismissed against defendant no.3 and not against defendants 1 and 2. Whatever the consequences of non-appearance of defendant no.3 that can be gone into at later stage. Therefore, at this stage, I am inclined to consider this facet that the dismissal of the suit against defendant no.3 need no interference. However, the Suit be proceeded against defendants 1 and 2 as they are already served as per findings given. 2. Taking all this into account, writ petition is partly allowed. The Suit is restored against ( 3 ) defendants 1 and 2. However, it is dismissed as ordered against defendant no.3 only. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)