1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.601 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2005 Anand D. Govekar. ..Appellant. V/s. Umatiya Builders & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Manish Mistry h/f.M.P.Vashi for appellant. Ms.Sapna Samant for Mr.H.S.Shreepad Murthy for respondent No.3. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JULY 7, 2006. DATE : JULY 7, 2006. DATE : JULY 7, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal from order is directed against the Judgment and order dated 10th March, 2005 passed by the Lower Court rejecting the request of the appellant to restore the suit to file to its original number and to proceed in accordance with the law. The suit was instituted by the appellant in 1996. The Court below has noted that since 1999, several adjournments were given to enable the appellant to file affidavit of service in respect of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Inspite of sufficient opportunity no steps were taken. On 20th December, 2004, when the 2 suit was listed for framing of issues as defendant No.3 had filed written statement, none appeared for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. Indeed, the order notes that on the same day, prayer for restoration was made. However, having regard to the background in which the suit came to be dismissed for default on 20th December, 2004, no interference is warranted with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. In that sense, matter was dismissed for default not only because of non-appearance on 20th December, 2004 but also because no steps were taken by the plaintiff to serve the defendants and file affidavit inspite of sufficient opportunity. In my opinion, eight years period is more than sufficient for effecting service on defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and to file affidavit in court as is rightly noted by the trial Court. In the circumstances, no fault can be found either in the approach or conclusion reached by the trial Court in rejecting the restoration application in the fact situation of the present case. 3. I may note that at the hearing of this appeal counsel was called upon to produce the order dated 20th December, 2004. However, that order has neither 3 been filed alongwith the appeal memo which was necessary as the relief was to set aside that order; nor any attempt was made to produce copy thereof at the hearing. The appeal in fact deserves to be rejected on the ground that relevant documents (much less impugned order of the trial Court) has not been placed on record. Be that as it may, As appeal is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. 4. Civil application disposed of accordingly.