1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1144 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.519 OF 1999 M/s.Puria Traders Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. : Respondents. Shri Anil C Singh i/by Shri D R Shah for the Applicant/Appellant. Shri Rohit Sanghavi, representative of Respondent No.19 in person present. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : MARCH 03, 2009 P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant prays for restoration of the Appeal from Order along with the Civil Applications which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the conditional order dated 3rd October 2008 by which order the Appellants were directed to effect service on the Respondent Nos.10, 14, and 16 within a particular time frame, the Appeal was to stand dismissed for non-prosecution if there was non-compliance. The learned counsel for the Applicants states that in fact the Respondent 2 No.10 has been served and is appearing through Advocate Shri Bipin Joshi and the default is only in respect of the Respondent Nos.14 and 16. 2. The reasons why the Respondent Nos.14 and 16 could not be served are mentioned in the above Civil Application. For the said reasons, the above Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Resultantly the Appeal from order is restored to filed along with the Civil Applications which were dismissed by the order dated 3rd October 2008. 3. In view of the fact that the Appeal from Order has been restored to file, issue fresh notice to the Respondent Nos.14 and 16, returnable in four weeks from date. Apart from the Court's Notice, the Applicants/Appellants shall serve a private notice on the Respondent Nos.14 and 16 by a Registered Post A.D and/or by Courier Service and/or by Hand Delivery and shall file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. If the compliance is not made, the above Appeal from Order would stand dismissed for non-prosecution as against the said 3 unserved Respondents without further reference to the Court. [R.M.SAVANT, J]