1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.14 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2908 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2610 OF 1991 Poona Fibre Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Appellants (Org. Plaintiffs) Versus R. S. V. Agencies & Ors. ....Respondents (Org. Defendants) Ms. Usha Ravi i/b. M/s. Mayur Narendra, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. S. I. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: By this appeal, the appellants/original plaintiffs challenges the order dated 17th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. By an order dated 9th December, 1993 passed in suit no.2610 of 1991, the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed Ist Defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.5,400 p.m.. The failure on the part of Ist Defendant to deposit the amount as per the order was to result in giving right to the plaintiffs to 2 apply for further interim order. The Ist Defendant deposited the amount as per the above order till January, 2002 but thereafter there was default in depositing the amount, therefore, notice of motion no.2908 of 2009 was taken out for condonation of delay in depositing the amount. That notice of motion for condonation of delay has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th November, 2009 subject to payment of interest on the amount of default. 2. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff. The consequence of failure on the part of the Ist Defendant to deposit the amount as per the order was that the plaintiff was to be entitled to prefer an application for further interim order. Though default was committed from January, 2002, till today no application has been taken out. Even assuming that the plaintiff was not aware of the default committed by the 1st Defendant till the notice of motion no.2908 of 2009 was taken out by the 1st Defendant, then also, admittedly, that notice of motion was taken out on 14th July, 2009 and till today, no steps have been taken by the Plaintiff. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is a just order, in as much as, he has condoned the delay but has also required the Ist Defendant to pay interest on the amount in relation to which there was default committed. In our opinion, no interference at the hands of the Appeal Court is called for. The appeal is dismissed as such. 3 3. In view of disposal of the appeal, the notice of motion no. 95 of 2010 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of, as such. (D. K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)