1 ss-276-89 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi SUMMARY SUIT NO. 276 OF 1989. UCO Bank. ..Plaintiff. vs. M/s. Regal Metal Works & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Ms. Swati Deshpande, i/b. M. Dhruva & Co., for Plaintiff. None for Defendants. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. In this Suit, on 6th January 2011, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff had sought some time. The Suit was therefore adjourned to 24th January 2011. On 24th January 2011 at the request of the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff, the Suit was once again adjourned to 7th February 2011. On 7th February 2011, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff informed the Court that some years back her office had at the request of the Plaintiff returned the papers to the Plaintiff. She further informed the Court that though the register maintained by the Office of Sheriff shows that the packets containing the writ of summons have been returned back, the Plaintiff is unable to trace the packets and is therefore not able to ascertain the ground on which the packets were returned back and to inform the Court whether the writ of summons have been served on the Defendants or not. In view thereof, the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Mandvi Branch, Mumbai, was directed to remain present before this Court on 9th February 2011 at 11.00 a.m. 2 ss-276-89 2. On 9th February 2011, Mr. Vipul Acharya, Manager of the Plaintiff-Bank was present before the Court. He informed the Court that he is trying to locate the papers, but he is not in a position to make any statement whether the Defendants are served with the writ of summons till date. The Suit was therefore adjourned to 15th February 2011. On 15th February 2011, once again time was sought on the same ground. The Suit was therefore adjourned to 22nd February 2011 i.e. today. Today, the learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff seeks further time in the matter. 3. The Suit is of the year 1989. A period of 22 years have elapsed after filing of the Suit. Despite several opportunities being given to the Plaintiff, till date the Plaintiff is not able to inform the Court whether the writ of summons have been served on the Defendants and if not what were the attempts made on behalf of the Plaintiff to effect service of the same on the Defendants in the last 22 years. It is therefore clearly established that the Plaintiff has after filing the Suit not taken any interest in prosecuting the same in the last 22 years. I am therefore constrained to dismiss the Suit for want of prosecution. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]