1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.476 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2581 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.4782 OF 1997 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3575 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.476 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2581 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.4782 OF 1997 Aercap Ireland Ltd. .... Appellant V/s. Airports Authority of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Divya Gurbuxani i/by Duttmenon Dunmorrsett, for the appellant. Mr.Avinash Kulkarni i/by M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for respondent No.1. Ms.Jaishree Surati i/by M/s.S.K.Srivastav & Co., for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. In view of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in Para No.4 of the impugned order, no interference is called for by this 2 Court in this appeal, especially when it is not in dispute that the present appellant is not having any office in India and it is an Ireland based company. According to the plaintiff, they tried to served the summons upon the defendants, but could not serve the same. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in not dismissing the suit on the ground that the summons was not served within reasonable time. 3. It is not in dispute that the present appellants has already appeared in the suit by taking a plea that the suit should be dismissed as summons was not served in time. The appellant can now file written statement within a reasonable time and contest the suit on merits. It is for the appellant to handover necessary papers to their Advocate, so tht the Advocate appearing for the defendant, can file written statement in the suit. Subject to what is stated above, the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the notice of motion does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)