IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3727 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3727 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3727 of 2008. IN IN IN SUIT NO.105 of 1986. SUIT NO.105 of 1986. SUIT NO.105 of 1986. Mathakia Investments Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiffs versus International Cotton Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ..Defendants Mrs. Sarika Dhadam for the plaintiffs Mr.K.D.Shah for defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 in support of the notice of motion CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th February, 2009. DATED : 24th February, 2009. DATED : 24th February, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.D.Shah for the defendant nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 who have taken out this notice of motion and the Counsel for the plaintiffs. The present plaintiffs M/s. Mathakia Investments Pvt. Ltd. took over the right of the original plaintiff Bank of Baroda and that is how they came to be substituted in place of Bank of Baroda. The present additional written statement which defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 wanted to file was engrossed in the year 2001 and copy was served upon Ms. Santara, learned Advocate for M/s. Mathakia Investments Pvt. Ltd., who at the -2- relevant time was shown as advocate for the applicant who have come on record pursuant to the Chamber Summons taken out by the said Mathakia Investment Pvt. Ltd. In the course of hearing of this motion technical objection was raised that the copy was served upon the advocate for the plaintiff and not on the plaintiff, who are now disowning Ms. Santara as their lawyer. In my view, this technicality cannot be used by the present plaintiffs and a reasonable opportunity will have to be given to the defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 to file additional written statement so as to counter the averments which have come on record after the amendment was granted, which amendment was granted on the request of Manthakia Investments Pvt. Ltd. In my view, the motion is required to be allowed as these defendants have acted in diligent manner except that they have taken out the present notice of motion after sufficient lapse of time. Hence the Order. ORDER . Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). -3- . Considering the question of delay involved, the defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 are directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- towards the cost of this motion. . Cost to be paid on or before 19.3.2009. . Additional written statement tendered by the Counsel for the defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 16 is taken on record. Mr. Shah states that his client shall pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff’s advocate. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)