: 1 : nms-2728-08=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2728 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 112 OF 2008 Mrs. Dorothy D’Souza .. Plaintiff v/s. Lily Apartment Co-operative .. Defendant ......... Mr. K.K.V. Kurup for the plaintiff in support of NMS ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the suit is numbered as Suit No.112 of 2008 after the suit was rejected on account of order dated 2nd May, 2006 and serial no. was given to the suit for statistical purposes. 2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit and it was provided with lodging number as 475 of 2006. Before the Prothonotary and Senior Master, this suit appeared on 2nd May, 2006 on which date, the Prothonotary and Senior Master directed that the objections should be removed before 6th : 2 : nms-2728-08=.sxw June, 2006 failing which the plaint would get rejected under Rule 986 on 7th June, 2007. 3. By this motion, plaintiff wants that the plaint which came to be rejected should be restored to the file. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. K.K.V. Kurup appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. In para 1 of the affidavit in support itself facts are stated as to how confusion got compounded on account of some mistake in the office of Mr. K.K.V. Kurup. It is noticed that the plaintiff could not remove the objections though they were of minor nature on account of confusion in the office of learned advocate Mr. Kurup, which resulted in non-removal of office objection and resulted in rejection of the plaint. 4. Looking to the facts mentioned in the affidavit in support, I am inclined to observe that plaintiff should not suffer for whatever has happened and an opportunity can be given to the plaintiff to rectify the mistake to prosecute the suit. Of course, for that, plaintiff will have to remove office objections as the same have not been removed up till now. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the notice of motion. : 3 : nms-2728-08=.sxw ORDER (i) Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms prayer clause (a) . (ii) Order dated 2nd May, 2006 is set aside. Similarly, order passed thereby rejecting the plaint on 7th June, 2007 is set aside. The plaint is restored to the file of this Court. (iii) Document of the plaint shows that as many as 8 objections have been raised by the Office and they are not removed. Plaintiff to remove all these objections on or before 12th January, 2011. If these objections are not removed before that date, plaint shall stand rejected without further orders. There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) If the plaintiff is of the view that particular objection raised by the office is not maintainable, he must take steps to have the said objection attended to in the Court by getting the matter before the Court so that Court can give its ruling as to whether the said objection is maintainable or otherwise. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)