: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. 2107 OF NO. 2107 OF NO. 2107 OF 1984 1984 1984 M/s. Kapurchand & Co. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Sri Tirumala Enterprises & Anr. ... Defendants. None for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 02ND 02ND 02ND FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs in the year 1984. 2. It had appeared before me on 20th November 2008 and I adjourned it for three weeks. Thereafter, it was placed on December 11, 2008 and I was informed that the earlier Advocate for the Plaintiffs has expired. Thereafter, one Advocate S.S. Phadke, appeared and stated that he has instructions to file his Vakalatnama. He again sought adjournment to take instructions and the matter was adjourned. It was clarified that the Court will not thereafter adjourn the matter. 3. On 12th January 2009, none appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Today also the Plaintiffs’ earlier Advocate’s name has been shown on Board but he has :2: expired. The Advocate thereafter engaged by the Plaintiffs has not filed his Vakalatnama. Even the Court Notice could not be served on the Plaintiffs as it appears that the Plaintiffs firm was not carrying on business from the address mentioned in the cause title. 4. In the light of the clear orders passed by this Court earlier, this Suit cannot be kept pending. It is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)