- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1711 OF 2000 NO.1711 OF 2000 NO.1711 OF 2000. Oriental Bank of Commerce. ..Plaintiff. v/s. A.J.Agencies & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Ms.Rozmin Lakhani, i/b. M/s. Shaunak Satpute & Co., for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2009 : 17TH JANUARY 2009 : 17TH JANUARY 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit was listed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 5th September 2007, when it was transferred to the list of "Undefended Suits". 2. The letters addressed to the plaintiffs by their Advocate dated 17th September 2007, 3rd December 2008 and 6th January 2009 are taken on record. By letter dated 17th September 2007, the Advocate for the Plaintiffs had informed the plaintiffs-Bank that the said suit is transferred to the list of "Undefended Suits". The plaintiffs-Bank was, therefore, put to notice by their Advocates that the matter would proceed ex-parte. Though the matter came up after more than one year, i.e. on 3rd December 2008 before this Court under the caption "For Ex-parte Decree", the plaintiffs were - 2 - not ready with their evidence as well as the original documents. Therefore, on 3rd December 2008, the Advocate for the plaintiffs requested the Court to grant some time to the plaintiffs for tendering their affidavits of evidence and the list of original documents. The suit was adjourned for four weeks. The Advocates for the plaintiffs intimated this fact by their letter dated 3rd December 2008 addressed to the plaintiffs-Bank and called upon them to tender the original documents to them on or before 10th December 2008. However, the plaintiffs failed and neglected to do so. 3. The suit was once again listed on board on 6th January 2009, However, the plaintiffs had failed to give the documents to the Advocates for the plaintiffs or to respond to the letter dated 3rd September 2008. The matter was therefore, adjourned to 13th January 2009 as a last chance. This fact was recorded by the Advocate for the plaintiffs by their letter dated 6th January 2009 addressed to their clients. It is categorically mentioned by the Advocate for the plaintiffs in the said letter that if they fail to hand over the original documents to their Advocates on or before 8th January 2009, it will not be possible for them to tender original documents alongwith the affidavit of evidence - 3 - before the Court on 13th January 2009 and consequently, the Court may pass necessary orders which may amount to dismissal of the suit for which they shall not be held responsible. The Advocate for the plaintiffs received a letter from the plaintiffs-Bank dated 12th January 2009 wherein it is inter-alia stated that the plaintiffs-Bank is unable to trace the original papers due to shifting of the records from the old premises to the new premises. 4. In view thereof, the Advocate for the plaintiffs is applying for further 2 weeks time to file affidavit of evidence alongwith the documents of the plaintiffs. The said application is rejected. 5. The plaintiffs are aware of the fact that the suit is transferred to the list of "Undefended Suits" since September 2007. They ought to have been ready with the originals in the last more than one year. In response to their Advocates’ letter dated 3rd December 2008, it was not pointed out by the plaintiffs that they have lost the originals. In fact they failed and neglected to respond to the said letter of their Advocates, despite having received the same on 4th December 2008. For the first time, the excuse of originals being lost is given in their letter dated 12th January 2009. In - 4 - any event, it is the duty of the plaintiffs which is a nationalised bank to take care of the original papers in respect of which they have filed law suits before the Courts. The plaintiffs cannot be given repeated extensions in a suit transferred to the list of undefended suits in September 2007, to enable them to trace papers which they have allegedly lost. No application for leading secondary evidence is filed. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs are not interested in seriously prosecuting the suit. The suit is therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]