1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 468 OF 2008 Communidade of Sancoale through Attorney .. Petitioner Versus Zuari Industries Limited Company through Company Secretary and 16 Ors., .. Respondents. Mr. H. D. Naik,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Aga, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 05 th May , 2009 . ORAL ORDER : Rule, returnable forthwith. 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco- da-Gama, Goa in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 and 13 of 2007 in Special Civil Suit No.18/2003. The suit reached the hearing. The issues were framed. The plaintiff' evidence was to be recorded. The petitioner herein was the original plaintiff, who failed to appear on all the dates of hearing. 2 The evidence of the plaintiff was to be recorded. Suit came to be adjourned on 14.11.2006 and 15.1.2007, after which on the third date i.e. on 14.3.2007 it was dismissed for default. 2. It has been the case of the plaintiff's in that application that the managing committee of the plaintiff was changed. The new managing committee took charge in the first week of March 2007. The members of the managing committee were not informed by the ex-attorney (Advocate of the plaintiff) about the pendency of the suit. The impugned order shows that after the issues were framed on 26.4.2006 the plaintiff's Advocate only remained present on 23.6.2006, 26.8.2006, 18.9.2006 before the plaintiff's evidence was to commence on 10.11.2006. The fact that only the plaintiff's Advocate appeared on the dates of hearing was of little use. The plaintiff's evidence could not be recorded. This was on several dates of hearing even prior to the present managing committee taking charge. The learned Judge cannot be stated to have acted without jurisdiction. In fact, the learned Judge has allowed as many as five adjournments after framing issues prior to dismissing the suit. 3. The application for restoration of the suit has 3 been dismissed on the ground of delay. The plaintiff's reason is for the delay after the period of limitation of 30 days allowed to the plaintiff from the date of dismissal of the suit. That period is between about 15.4.2007 to 29.5.2007. The impugned order has rejected the plaintiff's case of sufficient cause being shown for taking out the application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 of C.P.C. after much delay. Since it is the suit of Communidade whose committee members, whether past or present, may not have been informed about its existence, the plaintiff is given one last opportunity to put up its case. The impugned order dated 16.1.2008 is set aside only upon the condition that the plaintiff proceeds with the hearing of the suit henceforth without applying for a single adjournment and proceeds with the trial without absenting itself when the evidence of the plaintiff or the defendant is being recorded or for arguments. The plaintiff shall further pay the costs of Rs.3,000/- to the defendants. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA 4