1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2622 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.856 OF 1981 Rajendra K. Dalal .... Plaintiffs vs Bombay Builders Company Pvt.Ltd. & 2 ors. ... Defendants None for the plaintiff. Mr. Gaurav Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla and C.B.C. for defendant no.1. Mr.Kalpesh Parekh i/b. Pragna Thakkar & Co. for defendant no.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 24th July, 2009 P.C.: 1 Considering the averments made and in view of the fact that this Court, in an identical Suit where the defendants are common, except plaintiff, by Order dated 14.10.2008 in Notice of Motion No.2699/2008 in Suit No.855/1981, this Court has granted/permitted defendant no.1 to file their written statement. 2 The plaintiff, though served, not present. It means that there is no opposition to allow this application. Defendant no.2 has also not filed reply, but the learned counsel is opposing this motion. It means that there is also nothing to support or show that the plaintiff has served writ of summons at earlier point of time. 2 3 However, considering the above facts and as issues are not even framed and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant this motion in terms of prayers (a) and (b). This is, however, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff within two weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)