- 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. jmi SUIT NO.148 OF 1990. Photophone Industries India Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. vs. Mr.Kshoni Raman. ..Defendant. .... Ms.Prachi Mhatre, i/b. M.S. Bodhanwala & Co., for Plaintiffs. None for Defendant. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH MARCH, 2009 : 16TH MARCH, 2009 : 16TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit had appeared on 3rd February 2009 when the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has sought 4 week’s time to enable them to seek instructions from the plaintiffs in the suit. An adjournment of 4 weeks was granted to the plaintiffs as a last chance. 2. However, when the suit appeared before this Court after 4 weeks, i.e. on 4th March 2009, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs informed this Court that they have not received any instructions from the plaintiffs since suit papers are very old. 3. In view thereof, the suit was adjourned to 16th - 2 - March 2009 i.e. today with a clarification that if the Advocate for the plaintiffs do not receive necessary instructions from their clients and failed to take out appropriate proceedings to amend the plaint (since the name of the plaintiff-Company has changed), the suit will be dismissed on 16th March 2009. 4. Today, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs state that though they had informed the plaintiffs that amendment proceedings are required to be taken out, they have not come forward to even have their name changed in the pending suit. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has further pointed out that despite receiving their letter dated 7th March 2009, the plaintiffs have by their letter dated 13th March 2009 only reiterated that the suit is very old and that they will have to check up with the factory and area offices qua the details of the case and that the Advocates should obtain extension of time in the suit. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs in response to a query, informed the Court that they have all the suit papers with them. It is, therefore, clear that despite this, the plaintiffs are not coming forward to give instructions to the Advocate for the plaintiffs on the - 3 - pretext that they are tracing their papers from their factory and other office. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is established beyond doubt that the plaintiffs are not interested in pursuing with their suit despite being given several opportunities by this Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. 6. This suit is therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]