1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3125 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 571 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2963 OF 2008 Laxmi alias Lipi wife of Mukul Gupta ...Plaintiff vs. Munish son of Bachchalal Gupta & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.A.V. Chatuphale for the Plaintiff. Mr.Prashant More i/b. Mr.S.R. Mishra for Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5. Mr.Javed Hussein with Mr.A.R. Shaikh for Defendant No.8. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 5, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant and Counsel for the defendants. 2 The plaintiff has taken out this Motion for restoration of Notice of Motion NO.571/2009 in Suit 2 No.2963/2008 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 20th July, 2009. In the affidavit in support, it is stated that the plaintiff s Advocate was in personal difficulty on one date and as a result, time was taken on his behalf by another Advocate. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had gone to her native place on the other date on illness of her mother and therefore, the plaintiff could not remain present. 3 An affidavit in reply has been filed by defendant no.8 vehemently opposing the submissions made by the Counsel for the plaintiff. It is submitted that sufficient explanation has not been given for the condonation of eight days delay in filing the Motion. It is further submitted that vague averments have been made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support. It is further submitted that there was nothing on record to show the cause for non-appearance on 20th July 2009 as also on the previous occasions. It is submitted that therefore, 3 the said Notice of Motion was liable to be dismissed. 4 In my view, the delay eight days in filing Notice of Motion is liable to be condoned since the explanation given by the plaintiff in the affidavit in support is a plausible explanation. Taking into consideration the explanation given by the plaintiff in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support, in my view, the plaintiff has made out a case for restoration of the notice of motion. The order dated 20th July, 2009, therefore, is recalled. Notice of Motion No.571/2009 is restored to the file. This Motion, accordingly, is disposed of. 5 Place the main Motion for hearing on 20th November, 2009. (V.M. KANADE, J.)