- 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. jmi SUIT NO. 1277 OF 1982. M/s.H. Karmali & Co. ..Plaintiff. vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr.D.G. Dhanure, i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Plaintiff. Mr.Safdar Karmali, Partner of Plaintiff, present. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 : 13TH APRIL, 2009 : 13TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The plaintiff is a partnership firm consisting of three partners. On 12th June 2008, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs had sought a short adjournment for filing affidavits of evidence as well as documents. This Court, therefore, adjourned the suit for three weeks, with a clarification that no further adjournment will be granted to the plaintiffs on the next date of hearing. 2. Thereafter, the suit once again appeared on 3rd July 2008, when the counsel for the plaintiff once again requested for a short adjournment to enable the plaintiffs to file their affidavit of evidence/documents. The suit was once again adjourned - 2 - for 2 weeks subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the High court Legal Services Committee within a period of one week from 3rd July 2008. The said cost of Rs.3,000/- is admittedly not paid by the plaintiffs till date. 3. Thereafter, the suit appeared on 18th November 2008 before this Court when at the request of the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, it was adjourned to 16th December 2008 to enable the plaintiffs’ to file their affidavit of documents and evidence. Thereafter, on 16th December 2008, when the suit came up for hearing, none appeared for the plaintiffs. The suit was therefore, adjourned beyond vacation. The suit once again came up before this Court on 24th March 2009 for filing affidavits of the plaintiffs evidence and documents when at the instance of the plaintiffs’ Advocate, the suit was adjourned to 30th March 2009. 4. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has today produced his letters dated 3rd July 2008, 9th December 2008, 26th March 2009 and 28th March 2009, repeatedly calling upon the plaintiffs firm to provide instructions and forward documents to the said Advocate to enable him to proceed with the suit. All the said notices are - 3 - admittedly received by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs-firm failed and neglected to come forward and give any instructions to the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. Today, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has once again applied for time to file the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and evidence on the ground that one of the partners, Mr. Safdar Hussain Karmali (who is present in Court) was in Ajmer for 15 days in July 2008. 5. As recorded earlier, a last chance was given to the plaintiffs to file their affidavit of evidence/documents as far back on 12th June 2008. Despite that, the plaintiffs have not paid any heed to the orders repeatedly passed by this Court on 12th June 2008, 3rd July 2008, 18th November 2008, 16th December 2008 and 28th March 2009. The plaintiffs have in utter disregard to the order dated 3rd July 2008 also not paid cost of Rs.3,000/- which was directed to be paid within a period of one week from 3rd July 2008. They have also not responded to several letters written by the Advocate for the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs-firm which are admittedly received by the plaintiffs-firm. The plaintiffs are unable to give any explanation qua their conduct. - 4 - 6. In view thereof, the request made on behalf of the plaintiffs for grant of further time to file affidavit of evidence/documents of the plaintiffs is rejected and the suit is dismissed, for failure on the part of the plaintiffs to prosecute the same. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]