: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 NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4541 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 4541 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 4541 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 952 OF NO. 952 OF NO. 952 OF 2003 2003 2003 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Mrs. Pratibha Joshi. ... Defendant. Mr. Viral Dilip Shukla i/b. Sukla & Associates for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 22ND 22ND 22ND JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . On perusal of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion and the relief claimed, it is apparent to me that the ingredients of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the C.P.C. are not satisfied. When a query was raised to the learned Advocate, he states that the relief is sought under this provision read with Section 151. Upon repeatedly questioning as to how all ingredients of even this provision are satisfied, the learned Advocate has not pointed out anything barring annexures to the plaint. Since the ingredients are not satisfied and there being no admitted liability, the Motion is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)