[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3302 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2615 OF 1983 Smt. Bhojibai Vensimal Hariramani & Anr. .... Plaintiffs Vs. Mrs. Komal S. Chainani & Ors. .... Defendants Shri Pritesh Rajgor i/b M/s. P.D.S. Legal for the Plaintiffs. Shri Mahendra Rathod i/b M/s. Tamhane & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SHRI A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C: P.C: P.C: This notice of motion is taken out for restoration of the above suit which came to be dismissed for default on 24-7-2008. Although it was pointed out that the reason mentioned in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion is not quite appropriate, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs makes a statement that the name of the Advocates’ firm appearing for the plaintiffs was not shown on the board of 24-7-2008. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendants states that he is not aware of the same. I am inclined to believe the statement of the Advocate for the plaintiffs and I think this anomaly in the board of 24-7-2008 was sufficient reason for the absence of the [2] plaintiffs’ Advocate on the said date when the suit was dismissed for default. Thus the motion deserves to be allowed. The other grounds for opposing the motion are technical in nature and, therefore, need to be ignored. The notice of motion is accordingly allowed. The suit stands restored to the board and to be listed in due course. (A.V. Nirgude, J.) sjs/J9nm3302.8 sjs/J9nm3302.8 sjs/J9nm3302.8