:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 845 OF 1984 NO. 845 OF 1984 NO. 845 OF 1984 State Bank of India. ...Plaintiffs. V/s. Devi Sharan Ramroop Chauhan & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. G.Vishwanath for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Pramodkumar for Defendant No.3. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 18TH 18TH 18TH NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Suit is by Bank filed in the year 1984 against the Defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,08,066.60 with interest at 15% per annum. It appears from a reading of the plaint that the loan was sanctioned for purchase of a truck. The loan was sanctioned in favour of Defendant No.1 pursuant to his application made in 1981. Defendants 2 and 3 are Guarantors. Upon a default committed by the First Defendant - Borrower and the Guarantor, the Suit came to be filed. At an interlocutory stage the vehicle was allowed to be sold and substantial sum was recovered. Further, there is a decree passed against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in execution of which also some sums have been recovered. The Suit is pending since 1984. This Court had noted this fact in the order passed on 8th March 2006 and thereafter, given ample time to the Bank to make up :2: its mind as to whether it desires to proceed with the Suit. The matter appeared before me on 15th October 2008 and 17th November 2008 and was adjourned till today. There was some difficulty for Mr. Vishwanath but now he is present. He fairly states that the above facts noted by me are undisputed. The original documents were filed at the time of obtaining a decree against Defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, he states that thereafter, the Bank Officers who were working at the relevant time at the concerned Branch have been posted elsewhere on promotion. They will not be always posted at Bombay. The matter is very old. 2. In my view, considering the fact that the Bank has recovered substantial amount, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the Suit pending on the file of this Court. In the light of the fact that no steps could be taken to proceed with the Suit against Defendant No. 3 on account of administrative and other difficulties, the Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. No costs. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)