1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.88 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.41 OF 2009 Muzamil Raffiq Jaka .. Plaintiff Versus Anushool Metals Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Anil Yadav with Ashwin Singh i/b. D.R.Shah for plaintiff Ms.S.S.Bhole for defendant Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th August 2009. P.C.: 1] This motion has practically worked itself out, by an ad-interim order dated 19th January 2009. The operative part of the said order reads thus:- “14. The plaintiff shall be entitled to remove whatever goods that may be still remaining at the place of contract, upon further payments to the extent of the value of such 1 goods, as per the contract between the parties within a reasonable time. If no further payment is made, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to remove any further goods.” 2] It is stated by the plaintiffs that they have addressed several letters seeking inspection of the goods soas to enable them to remove them, after payment of price but there is no response from the defendants. 3] Defendant has also not filed any affidavit or documents demonstrating the present status of the goods. 4] In my view, therefore, the interest of justice would be sub-served if the plaintiff is granted four weeks' time to make payment of the goods which are stated to be lying in the suit premises, more particularly described in the order dated 19th January 2009. Plaintiffs can inspect the goods and make payment so also remove them but no extension of this period under any circumstances will be granted. 5] It is needless to state that benefit of this order would not be 1 available to the plaintiffs in case the goods have already been removed or disposed of by the defendants. In that event all prayers in the motion are rendered infructuous. Motion disposed of in the above terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)