IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4370 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3329 OF 2004 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ..... ..... ...Appellant V/s M/s. Hughes Telecom (India) Ltd. ..... ..... ...Respondent Mr. Samit D. Shukla i/b. M/s. Shukla & Asso. Adv. for the appellants None for the respondent CORAM: J.N.PATEL ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. 18th January, 2010. PC: 1. Heard. 2. This appeal can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent/original defendant for a simple reason that the learned Single Judge has rejected the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff for setting aside the order of rejection of the plaint made under rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. 3. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in rejecting the Motion as he has found that there were delay and latches on the part of the appellant in filing the application. The litigants so also the counsel are expected to be diligent in prosecuting the matter in the court. However, we are of the view that the litigant should not suffer on account of the latches committed by the advocate, moreover when the appellant is a Government of India undertaking. It is however expected that the litigant should proceed against the advocate on account of negligence and adverse order passed against the appellant. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case the delay having been occurred on account of negligence on the part of the advocate we are inclined to allow the appeal. 4. Whatever it may be we quash and set aside the impugned order, condone the delay and permit the appellant to remove the office objections within two weeks. Failure to do so, would result in dismissal of the appeal without further reference to the court. (Acting C.J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)