1 nms793-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No. 793 of 2010 in Suit No. 633 of 2004 Board of Trustees of Seamens Provident Fund .. Plaintiffs v/s. Anupkumar Gond and Others ..Defendants Mr.S.R.Rajguru for the Plaintiff. Ms.Shashikala Sharma i/b. Y.N.Adhia for the Defendant No.3 Mr.Avinash Singh Gautam i/b. M/s. Dhruv & Co. for the Defendant No.1 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 1st February, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs want that order dated 12.3.2009 dismissing the suit is against the defendant nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 for want of service of writ of summons upon these defendants should be set aside. 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Rajguru. Learned Counsel Mr. Rajguru tried to submit that in the year 2008 one Chamber Order was taken out for substituted service. He pointed out that there were some corrections in the said Chamber Order and therefore instead of 2 nms793-10.sxw carrying out amendment the new Chamber Order was taken out by the plaintiffs on 18.3.2009 on the strength of affidavit dated 16.3.2009. Learned Counsel Mr. Rajguru tried to submit that the plaintiffs were attending to the matter and therefore the order be set aside. 3. Having perused the text of the order dated 12.3.2009, it is clear that the plaintiffs were negligent in attending to the matter so far as the service of writ of summons upon defendant nos.2, 4, 5 and 6. It may be true that in the year 2008 the proceedings were taken out in the nature of Chamber Order for substituted service. However the statement made in the affidavit in support in para 5, namely that new Chamber Order was taken out on 18.3.2009 by filing affidavit dated 16.3.2009 is clear to show that earlier Chamber Order was dropped by the plaintiffs. This new Chamber Order was taken out after order dated 12.3.2009 was passed. Looking to the entire affidavit in support, I am inclined to observe that no satisfactory explanation is given by the plaintiffs to set aside the order dated 12.3.2009. It is to be noted that the suit is of 2004. Plaintiffs had sufficient time to attend to the matter. Whatever explanation is given by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted to set aside order dated 12.3.2009. 3 nms793-10.sxw Consequently, motion will have to be dismissed. Hence following order is passed to dispose of the notice of motion. ORDER i) Motion is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]