1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 398 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3595 OF 2006. Gregory Xavier Almeida. ..Plaintiff. v/s. M/s. Survin Development Corporation & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Prashant P. Prabhu, for Plaintiff. Mr. P. A. Sawant, for Defendant No.1. Mr. Nikhita Salian, i/b. Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co., for Defendant No.2. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. This notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.1 seeking orders and directions directing the plaintiff to remain present in person before this Court with proper identification. Mr. Surendra P. Kambli, the Proprietor of the defendant no.1 is the father of the defendant no.2. The Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 states that the plaintiff is abroad and the suit was filed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney shri Dilip K. Malani. He submits that defendant no.2 had contacted the plaintiff to enable the parties to settle the matter. At that time, the plaintiff informed the defendant no.2 that he first wishes to withdraw the power of attorney in favour of Mr. Dilip K. Malani and thereafter, he will settle 2 the dispute which is the subject matter of the above suit. He submits that it is therefore, very necessary to direct the plaintiff to remain present in Court and record that the plaintiff has revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Dilip K. Malani. 2. The Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits that he has not received any instructions from the plaintiff as regards revocation of the power of attorney in favour of Mr. Dilip K. Malani. Mr. Malani has also not received any such instructions from the plaintiff. However, the Advocate for the plaintiff has received a letter from the Advocates of the defendant no.2 alongwith a copy of the deed of revocation of power of attorney purportedly executed by the plaintiff, whereunder the power / authority given by the plaintiff to Mr. Dilip K. Malani is revoked. The Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits that he would have no objection if the plaintiff is directed to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. 3. Since the defendant no.2 is in contact with the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 has agreed to inform the plaintiff to remain present before this Court on 12th January 2010. It is clarified that even if the matter is not shown on board on 12th January 2010, and if the plaintiff is present on that day, the parties shall have the papers 3 produced before this Court and shall have the necessary statement/s of the plaintiff recorded by the Court, which is very necessary in view of the aforestated facts. 4. In view thereof, notice of motion no.398 of 2008 stands disposed of. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]