- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3036 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.97 OF 1984 Vijay Prataprai Mehta. ...Applicant/plff. vs. 1.Shabir Rangwala & ors. ...Defendants. --- Mr.P.V.Dhopatkar, for Plaintiff. Mr.Ajmerwalla, for Defendant no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 15th December,2008 15th December,2008 15th December,2008 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff and the learned Counsel appearing for defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 1, 5 , 6, 10 and 11 who were present at the time when the matter was dismissed for default, are served. 2. Mr.Ajmerwalla, Advocate appearing for defendant no.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply which is also perused by me. - 2 - 3. The plaintiff has stated in the affidavit in support that the Advocate engaged by him is out of station and even he was unable to remain present when the matter was called out. In these circumstances, sufficient cause has been made out for non appearance on the relevant date. Ultimately, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have filed suits against each other which are pending, interest of justice would, therefore, be subserved if this suit is restored. 4. Notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. 5. In the peculiar facts of this case, written statement of first defendant is taken on record. 6. Place Suit nos.97 of 1984, 115 of 1984 and 243 of 1984 and 2410 of 1983 for framing of issues on 8.1.2009. (S.C.Dharmadhikari,J.)