1 Mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4370 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3329 OF 2004 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. .. Plaintiff versus M/s.Hughes Telecom(India) Ltd. .. Defendant ... Mr. V.D.Shukla i/b Shukla & Associates for the plaintiff. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th June 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. 2. Motion is taken out by the plaintiff for setting aside the order of rejection of the plaint made under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules on account of non removal of office objections. 3. Prothonotary & Sr.Master passed the order on 8th June 2004 directing the plaintiff to remove office objections on or before 3rd August 2004 failing which the plaint would stand rejected. Despite the said order, office objections were not removed. Consequently the plaint was rejected. 4. The present application has been filed on 10th December 2008 i.e. After lapse of more than four years. In my view, 2 the delay is not satisfactorily explained. The explanation sought to be given in the affidavit in support is not at all satisfactory. Allegations have been made that the previous advocate Mr.N.C. Patel did not inform the plaintiff about the dismissal. The very affidavit says that after Mr.N.C. Patel, Bhamblani & Co. were appointed as advocates, though no date has been mentioned when the advocate Mr.N.C. Patel discharged and Mr.Bhamblani was engaged. No steps were taken by Bhamblani & Co. for setting aside the order. Bhamblani & Co. was also discharged and M/s.Shukla & Associates were appointed as advocates in the month of August 2008. No steps were taken by Shukla & Co. from August 2008 to December 2008. Though the affidavit in support of the motin was sworn in 10th December 2008 the motion was filed two weeks later on 23rd December 2008. This shows clear carelessness. Copy of the order of the Prothonotary rejecting the application is also not annexed to the application which shows casual manner in which the matter is dealt with. 5. In my view, the delay is not at all satisfactorily explained but there appears to be gross negligence at the end of the plaintiff. Hence, motion is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)