1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1167 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.635 OF 2009 Mr.Vipul Khandubhai Mithaiwala & Anr. .. Plaintiffs V/s Mr.Ashok Maheshwari Thakur & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Prasad Mite i/by Mr.B.V.Holambe Patil for the Plaintiff.s. Mr.J.S.Chandnani for Defendant No.8. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. This notice of motion was heard on 7.12.2009 and was placed for orders today. 2. Today the plaintiffs Advocate seeks leave to make further submissions. ’ When it was clarified that it would be open for the plaintiffs s Advocate ’ to make submissions it is stated that he is in personal difficulty because some guests from his native place have arrived and he has to look after them. This is hardly any ground for adjournment. The Advocates who are professionals are supposed to attend to their professional commitments first and are expected to remain present during the court working hours, atleast in part-heard matters. I do not think that this expectation is unreasonable. Adjournment is therefore refused. 3. I have also perused the notice of motion, affidavit in support and the reply. There is no Ad-Interim order on this motion. The agreement which 2 is the foundation of the plaintiffs claim is dated 10th April, 2003. The ’ plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of this agreement by instituting a suit in this Court on 4th November, 2008. There is no explanation forthcoming for this enormous delay. Secondly, on affidavit it is clarified that this agreement was with Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. However, their rights in the suit property have been put an end to by other Defendants. Unless the plaintiffs succeed in their challenge to these documents, they cannot claim specific performance of the agreement executed by Defendant No.s 1 & 2 in their favour. The cancellation of those documents in favour of Defendant Nos.1 & 2 is of September, 2007. The plaintiffs cannot claim any relief unless this deed of cancellation is held to be illegal and not binding on them. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, no prima-facie case is made out. Notice of motion is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)