1 WP 5778/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5778 OF 2010 Farukh Moosa Inamdar .. Petitioner V/s Mahmood Abdulla Inamdar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Mr. Sadavarte waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5. Service of Rule on the other respondents is dispensed with as they are not concerned with the order impugned. 3. Since multiple orders are challenged in a single writ petition, learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition challenging the order dated 24 June 2010 passed below Exhibit-174 in the suit with liberty to challenge the said order by filing a separate writ petition. 2 WP 5778/10 4. Leave granted. The writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn so far as the challenge to the order dated 24 June 2010 passed below Exhibit-174 is concerned with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order separately. 5. As regards the order dated 11 March 2010 passed below Exhibit-1 dismissing the suit against defendant nos.12 to 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, 40, 48, 54, 56 and 62, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is obviously incorrect. As regards the defendant nos.12 to 18, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the vakalatnama filed by defendant nos.12 to 18. Since defendant nos.12 to 18 had appeared in the Court through lawyer, there was no question of dismissing the suit against them for non-service. The submission must be accepted. The order appears to have been passed upon an assumption that defendant nos.12 to 18 were not served and therefore had not appeared. Hence, the order of dismissal of the suit against defendant nos.12 to 18 is required to be set aside. As regards the remaining part of that order, no interference is called for. 3 WP 5778/10 6. By another order of the same date, i.e.11 March 2010, the learned trial Judge also dismissed the suit against defendant nos. 143, 46, 47, 49, 50, 57, 58, 63 and 69 for want of prosecution as no steps were taken for service against them. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, for a period of 2 years appropriate steps for service on them had not been taken. Hence, that order also requires no interference. 7. For these reasons, only the order dated 11 March 2010 dismissing the suit against defendant nos.12 to 18 is quashed and set aside. Rest of the orders both dated 11 March 2010 are confirmed. 8. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)