1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.2341 OF 1996 Bank of India Plaintiff versus Maharshi Steel Defendant Mr.N.S.Fadia for plaintiff. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 21st February 2011 PC : 1. From the records it appears that an attempt was made to serve the writ of summons in the year 2000. However, the same could not be served since the proprietor of the defendant firm has left the place. Thereafter the plaintiff bank has not taken any steps to serve the writ of summons on the defendants by way of substituted service. Thereafter, on 10th January 2011 when the matter appeared before this Court, at the request of the learned advocate for the plaintiff bank, the same was adjourned to 14th February 2011. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has placed on record his letter dated 14th January 2011 setting out the above facts in detail and seeking instructions from the plaintiff bank for serving the writ of summons on the defendant by way of substituted service. Though the bank has received the said letter on 15th January 2011 itself, the bank has till date failed and neglected to give instructions to their advocate qua the service of the writ of summons by substituted service. It is therefore established beyond any doubt that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit any further. The suit is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. The letter dated 14th January 2011 is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)