ssp 1 NMS 1106 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1106 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.594 OF 1986 Maya Arjun Thadani and Anr. .....Plaintiffs versus Govind Khanchand Jhangiani and Ors. ..... Defendants Mr.Mohan Pungliya with Mr.Neel Pungliya, for the plaintiff in support. Ms.Rutuja Ambekar, for the defendants. CORAM: R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE: 28TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. : 1. By the above Notice of Motion, the plaintiffs seek restoration of the suit which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 29-11-2007. Plaintiffs also seek condonation of delay of 1217 days in filing the above Motion. The reasons why the delay has occasioned has been mentioned in the affidavit of support. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their Advocate whom they had engaged had died two months prior to the suit being dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs on the said date, which also resulted in the plaintiffs not being aware of the developments in the above suit. It is only some time in the year 2011 that the plaintiffs on taking search, became aware of the dismissal of the suit. ssp 2 NMS 1106 of 2011 2. None appears for the defendants though served. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs tender affidavit of service dated 26-11-2010, to which are annexed the receipts of the courier service. 3. Considering the averments made in the affidavit in support, in my view, case for restoration of the suit is made out. It is also required to be noted that the suit is for partition which would ultimately ennure to the benefit of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The Notice of Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Suit is resultantly restored to the file. List the suit for directions on 04-07-2011. 4. After the order is passed, Ms.Ambekar, learned counsel for the defendants, makes an appearance and states that she has instructions to appear for the defendants and seeks adjournment. Her opposition is on the ground that there is a delay of three years in filing the above application. As the reasons for the delay have been accepted in the earlier part of this order, there is no need to adjourn the matter at the request of Ms.Ambekar. Plaintiff to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the defendants. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. )