: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.19 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.289 OF 2009 IN L.C. SUIT NO.3023 OF 2006 Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent Mr.Deepak A. Lad for Appellant Ms.K.K. Soraan for Respondent Corporation CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal from order has been preferred against the order dated 1.10.2009 dismissing the Motion. The trial Court has dismissed the Motion filed for setting aside the order dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not made out sufficient cause for restoring the suit. The case of the plaintiff Is that due to the illness of his advocate, who later passed away, he was unable to attend the trial and therefore, the suit has been dismissed. 2. The trial Court after considering these grounds has found that the plaintiffs have not shown good and sufficient reasons for restoring the suit. Apart from that, the trial Court has also considered the fact that consistently the plaintiff and/or his advocate have been lax in prosecuting the suit. On several occasions the trial Court : 2 : had shown indulgence to the appellant and had permitted the appellant to lead evidence. However, it appears that the plaintiff and their advocate continued with their recalcitrant attitude and refused to attend the matter. 3. It is now submitted on behalf of the appellant that indulgence should be shown to the appellant once again in order that the appellant may prosecute the suit. 4. The learned advocate for the Corporation submits that the plaintiff have unnecessarily delayed the entire suit from 2006 although the prayer sought in the suit is that the Corporation should not take any action without following due process of law. She submits that the plaintiff could have approached the Lok Adalats which are being held from time to time before the trial Court to have the suit disposed of. As regards the restoration of the suit, the learned advocate submits that the order of the trial Court need not be interfered with. 5. In my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. However, in order to show indulgence to the appellant whose only contention in the suit appears to be that the Corporation should take action by following the due process of law, in my opinion, the suit can be restored by putting the plaintiffs to terms. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Notice of Motion is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Corporation. Costs to be paid within two weeks from today as condition precedent for the suit to be heard.