1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3876 of 2007 IN SUIT NO.1283 of 1994 Jai Prakash Janu Koli .. Plaintiff versus Pundalik Janu Koli & ors. .. Defendants ... Mr. S.D. Mogre for the plaintiff. Ms.Suchita Patankar with Mr.V.S.Kapse for the defendant no.1 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :20 th July 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the appearing counsel. 2. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default on 12 th February 1999. The order of 2 dismissal is not annexed to the motion. However, perusal of the record of the suit shows that the plaintiff and his advocate were absent on 5 th February 2009 and therefore, the suit was adjourned to 12 th February 2009 for dismissal. On 12 th February 2009, again the plaintiff and his advocate were absent and therefore the suit was dismissed for default. The present motion for restoration has been taken out on 12 th October 2007 with the prayer of restoration of the suit and condonation of delay in taking out the motion. 3. As regards the delay, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to averments made in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit in support. Thereafter, I have lost the track of the matter and I have not given by telephone number to my Advocate. Recently, when I enquired with my Advocate whether as per the said order whether Defendant no.1 is submitting accounts or not. At that time on enquiry I learnt that on 12 th February 1999, the matter had appeared before the Prothonotary & Senior Master and the same came to be dismissed for default. 3 There is no other averment explaining the delay. The only ground for condonation of a delay mentioned in the affidavit in support is that the plaintiff had lost the track of the matter. No explanation has been given as to why he did not pursue or keep track of the matter. In fact, from February 1999 to October 2007 he did not even care to know what had happened to his suit. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff is of a gross negligence and the delay in taking out the motion is not at all explained. In the circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned. Motion is barred by limitation. Motion is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)