/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2205 OF 2008 IN S.C. SUIT NO.4078 OF 2000 Pankaj Kishor Shah ...Plaintiff Vs. Naresh P. Khetan ...Defendants --- Y.R. Shah for Plaintiff in Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion Ms. Sunita N.Potdar for Defendants. CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED JULY 9, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for restoration of the Notice of Motion No.4078 of 2000, which was dismissed for want of prosectuion by this Court by order dated 18th June, 2008. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff that when the matter was called out, his Advocate, Shri Yatin Shah was held up in another Court and before he could reach, the Court by order dated 18th June, 2008 was pleased to dismiss the Notice of Motion for want of prosecution. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant has opposed the restoration of motion. She has filed her affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion. It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2000 and neither the / 2 / writ of summons nor the earlier Notice of Motion was served on the Defendants and certain ad-interim orders were obtained by the Plaintiff behind back of her. This Notice of Motion has dismissed on 2004, no application was made for restoration of the Notice of Motion. Thereafter, a second Notice of Motion was taken out in 2008. It is submitted that since the Notice of Motion is dismissed for want of prosecution, the cause shown by the Plaintiff for restoration is not sufficient cause and, therefore, this Notice of Motion for restoration be dismissed. 2. In my view, considering the statement made by the Defendant in the affidavit in reply, and more particularly in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, sufficient cause is shown for setting aside the order dated 18th June, 2008. The said order is set aside and the Notice of Motion No.2205 of 2008 be restored to the file. However, it is clarified that the interim order, if any, which was granted in the said Notice of Motion is not restored, since I propose to hear the said Notice of Motion finally. Accordingly the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). S.O. to 21st July, 2008. / 3 / V.M. KANADE J.