1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4277 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2710 OF 1997 Jawahar P. Kanungo ...Plaintiff vs. ISIBARS Limited & Anr. ...Defendants Mr.U.J. Makhija, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Rutuja Joshi i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Plaintiff. Mr.Mahendra Agavekar i/b. Mr.R.K. Associates for the Defendants. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the plaintiff and Counsel for the defendants. 2 This notice of motion is filed by the defendants for setting aside order dated 24th August, 2 2009 whereby exparte order was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also are seeking leave of this court to file his written statement after condoning the delay. 3 Counsel for the defendants submitted that the first Advocate appointed obtained his discharge and thereafter, a new Advocate has been appointed by the defendants. According to the defendants, a new Advocate also did not file a written statement or did not file his vakalatnama and therefore, the matter was listed under the caption of Undefended Suits . It is, therefore, submitted that for the fault of the Advocate, the litigant should not be made to suffer. 4 I have perused the impugned order. In my view, no steps have been taken by the defendants to pursue their case in a due and diligent manner. The first Advocate had taken discharge in 2001 and also had informed the defendants that he had taken 3 discharge. However, the second Advocate was appointed in 2004. Even after the appointment of the second Advocate, the defendants did not take any steps to find out whether vakalatnama is filed or not. In this view of the matter, therefore, it is not open for the defendants now to blame their Advocate for the exparte decree which was passed against them. It is obvious that the defendants have tried to protract the litigation and did not bother till the exparte decree was passed. Hence, no case is made out, therefore, for setting aside the exparte decree. 5 Notice of Motion, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)