rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2447 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2447 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2447 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT NO. 744 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 744 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 744 OF 2003 Mahabal L.Shetty ..Plaintiff V/s. Shakila Ansari & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b. Ashoka Law Firms for Plaintiff. Mr.Viraj Manior i/b. Viraj Manior Associate for Defendant. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . This is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for setting aside the order dated 17th June, 2003 dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 789 of 2003 for default. . (For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).) 2. After the said order dated 17th June, 2003, the Plaintiff took out the Notice of Motion No. 1061 of 2006. Some of the reliefs in Notice of Motion : 2 : No. 1061 of 2006 were similar to the reliefs in Notice of Motion No. 789 of 2003. However, it cannot be stated that merely because some of the reliefs overlapped, the Plaintiff took out the subsequent Notice of Motion knowing that the earlier Notice of Motion has been dismissed for default. 3. The Notice of Motion No. 1061 of 2006 was dismissed by an order dated 7th April, 2006 on the ground that the Plaintiff ought to have sought restoration of Notice of Motion No. 789 of 2003. It is, in these circumstances, that the present Notice of Motion was taken out. 4. It was contended, however, on behalf of the Defendant that Plaintiff had also filed Appeal No. 835 of 2006 against the order dated 7th April, 2006. Mr. Godbole states that in the event of the present Notice of Motion being allowed and the order dated 17th June, 2003 being set aside, the Plaintiff will withdraw the said Appeal. He further adds that the Plaintiff will however apply to the Appealate Court for appropriate orders enabling them to pursue the other reliefs claimed in Notice of Motion No. 1061 of 2006. : 3 : 5. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). However the ad-interim order shall not stand revived. It will be open to the Plaintiff to make a fresh application for ad-interim orders. *******