1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2099 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8492 OF 2004 M/s.Vakrangee Software Ltd. & ors. .. Applicants v/s. Central Bank of India .. Respondent Mr.P.K.Samdani i/by M/s.Nankani & Associates for the applicants Mr.Jaideep Mitra i/by Mr.T.N.Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 13th January, 2006 P.C. Heard. 2. We are not inclined to grant the application. It would be seen that on 29.3.2005 when the writ petition came up before the court, at the instance of the petitioners, the writ petition was adjourned as it was submitted that the petitioners were negotiating for settlement. 3. Then the writ petition was posted for admission on 12.4.2005. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioners again sought adjournment on the ground that talks of settlement were going on with the respondent-bank. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that the proposal for settlement forwarded by the petitioners was not acceptable to 2 the bank and the learned counsel for the bank opposed the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioners. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to proceed with the matter but he submitted that he was not ready and prayed for time. It was observed in the order that the petitioners were not serious in the matter and were seeking adjournment on one ground or the other. However, in the interest of justice, an opportunity by way of last chance was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners subject to the cost of Rs.5000/-. The matter was, thus, adjourned for two weeks. 4. The matter again came up before the court on 26th April, 2005. On that day also, the advocate for the petitioners prayed for time. Despite that, by order dated 12.4.2005, the adjournment by way of last chance was given, in the interest of justice. One more opportunity was granted to the petitioners and matter was adjourned for one week subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/-. It was made clear in the order that if the cost was not paid within the time as directed, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without reference to court. The cost of Rs.20,000/- was not paid and consequently, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 26th April, 2005 could not be complied with as the petitioner 3 Nos.2,3 and 4 were out of Bombay. We are afraid, the submission cannot be accepted. We are unable to believe that all the three petitioners viz. petitioner No.2, petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 were out of Bombay for the entire week from 26th April, 2005. Even if that was so, the petitioner No.1 is a public limited company and the cost could have been deposited through any other employee. Even otherwise, we find from the proceedings that earlier on 12.1.2005, the writ petition was dismissed for non-appearance on behalf of the petitioners and then it was restored vide order dated 31.1.2005. The whole intention of the petitioners, thus, appear to be in prolonging the matter. The application is not bonafide and is dismissed. (R.M. (R.M. (R.M. LODHA, J.) LODHA, J.) LODHA, J.) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)