1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2037 OF 1984 Siemens India Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.S.Fadia for plaintiffs Mr.Rajguru i/b.S.C.Pal i/b. H.D.Rathod for Union of India Mr.A.Kamath i/b. V.S.Deshpande & Asso. for applicants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th November 2008 P.C. . In this matter an order was passed on 17th November 2008 on the basis that plaintiff No.2 M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. and the plaintiff No.1 Siemens desire change of Advocate. However, that clarification has been issued and neither of the plaintiffs desire any change of Advocates. Mr.N.S.Fadia continues as Advocate for plaintiffs. 2 2. The order passed on 17th November 2008 is, therefore, corrected and it will not be, therefore, necessary for M/s.V.S.Deshpande to file their vakalatnama. 3. Mr.Fadia states that plaintiff No.1 had insured the subject consignment with plaintiff No.2 insurer and, therefore, has recovered the amount of loss sustained from the insurer. There was a subrogation and pursuant to that arrangement, plaintiffs have filed the suit and that is how plaintiff No.2, Insurer is prosecuting the suit. However, despite repeated letters, plaintiff No.2, through its Mumbai Divisional Office has not given any instructions to Mr.Fadia to proceed with the suit. 4. I have already clarified that no adjournments would be granted hereafter to the plaintiff as the suit is pending in this Court 3 since 1984. Though, it may be observed that the matter was transferred to Railway Claims Tribunal for brief period, yet, the papers have been returned back to this Court way back by the said Tribunal. Although, papers have been sent back, plaintiff No.2, Insurer has not evinced any interest in proceeding with the suit claim. 5. Its my observation that as far as insurance company is concerned, it has pending litigation in this Court. There are several suits instituted by this company which are pending from 1984 to 1988. One Mrs.Lalita Pagare from Mumbai Divisional Office had come to court in connection with some other cases of the company and she was told by me that this insurance company is not pursuing public claims and recovering public monies. There is complete inaction on the part of this insurer. She sought time in the other matters but as far as this matter is concerned, despite repeated 4 adjournments, the Mumbai Divisional Office is not giving any instructions to plaintiffs’ Advocate. 6. Mr.Fadia is, therefore, discharged as Advocate for plaintiff. In the light of the letter addressed by Mr.Fadia on 12th September which is duly received by the Mumbai Divisional Office of plaintiff No.2 on 15th September 2008 and even prior communication, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. Copies of the letters are placed on record and marked as X and X-1 for identification. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)