1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2009 Mehboob Khan ........Appellant versus The Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Bombay........ Respondents. Mrs. Geeta Shastri i/b M/s. Khilnani & Co. adv. for the Appellant Mr. J. J. Xavier adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This appeal challenges an order passed by the trial court dismissing the suit in default of appearance of the party so also his advocate on 5-1-2009. The main greivance of the appellant is that the suit was adjourned to 21-1-2008. However the same was listed on 5-1-2009 and hence the plaintiff did not and could not remain present and on account of the absence of the plaintiff the suit came to be dismissed. The next ground is that on 5-1-2009 when the suit was listed, the board did not display the name of the plaintiff so also the counsel for the plaintiff. In this situation the submission is that the impugned 2 order is without an authority of law besides being illegal, unjust and unfair. 3. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the Plaintiff after having obtained interim relief, is trying to delay and protract the proceedings and is not co-operating in expeditious disposal of the suit despite an order passed by the High Court to that effect. It is pointed out that the suit was to be disposed of in view of the time bound order, but on account of the non co-operation from the plaintiff the suit is still pending on the file on the court below. 4. Having regard to the fact that the suit was adjourned to 21-1-2008 on the previous date and was wrongly listed on 5-1-2009, it would be in in the interest of justice to restore the same. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically stated that the appellant would co-operate in expeditious disposal of the suit and would in no case seek an adjourment before the trial court. The statement is accepted. By consent of parties, the trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possisble and at any rate within a period of four months from today. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5-1-2009 dismissing the suit in defalt is quashed and set aside. The suit is restored to file. Parties shall appear before the City Civil Court at Bombay on 21-1-2009 and the plaintiff shall keep his witnesses present for recording of cross examination on 3 that day. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)