ssm sm sm 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 APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2007 NO. 641 OF 2007 NO. 641 OF 2007 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3694 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 3694 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 3694 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 588 of 1989 NO. 588 of 1989 NO. 588 of 1989 Framroz Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Mrs. Dee A. Irani & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.U.J. Makhija i/by Mr. Amin Kherada for the Appellants. Mr. Ferhan Dubhash a/w. Ms. Dipti Das i/by Mr. Dunmorr Sett for the Respondent no.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2008 : 28TH JANUARY, 2008 : 28TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for Respondent No.3. By this Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the order dated 26th June, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 3694 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge has restored the suit only for Plaintiff No.3, subject to the condition that the Plaintiff No.3 should pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as costs to the Defendant No.1. It appears that the said costs has been paid to the learned Advocate ( 2 ) appearing for the Defendant and the said amount is returned back to the Plaintiff No.3. 2. Perused the said order of the learned Single Judge. We have not found any illegality in the said order, so far as the discretion exercised for restoring the above suit in the larger interest of justice. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. However, the suit is pending for last over 18 years in this Court. Hence we expedite the hearing of the above suit. The learned Counsel for the Appellants/ original Defendants, Mr. Makhija seeks six weeks time to file written statement in the said suit. The Defendants shall file written statement within a period of six weeks from today. The discovery and inspection shall be completed within a period of six weeks thereafter. Upon completion of the said discovery and inspection, liberty is granted to the parties to move the learned Single Judge for fixing an early date of hearing of the above suit. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Defendants submits that the names of the original Plaintiff Nos. ( 3 ) 1 and 2 be deleted in the above suit. Accordingly, names of Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 stand deleted. Amendment shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from today in the original plaint. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondents states that a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) will be paid to the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants within a period of one week. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal stands disposed of. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)