IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.306 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.232 OF 2006 Mathradas Gokuldas ..... Plaintiff V/s. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Ors. .... Defendants Mr.Pankaj Sutar i/by M/s.Khaitan & Jaykar, for the plaintiff. CORAM: R.Y.GANOO , J. DATED: 21 st JANUARY, 2009. P.C. 1. This notice of motion is being heard without hearing the defendants in the peculiar facts and circumstances namely, a plaint came to be rejected for non-removal of office objections. The plaintiff has by this notice of motion prayed for setting aside the order dated 22-03-2006 and the plaintiff wants that the suit be restored to the file of this Court. The office objection with regard to the concerned Advocate on record being a member or not a member of the fund, is removed by the counsel for the plaintiff today itself, with the permission of the Court as it was not removed till today. 2. Keeping in view the peculiar nature of the matter, I am inclined to observe that the Court should not be over technical, otherwise the claim of the plaintiff would be defeated. In my view, the notice of motion is required to be granted. Hence, the following order. : O R D E R : 1. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 2. There shall be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the plaintiff upon instruction, makes a statement that all office objections have been removed. If this is the position, office to issue writ of summons after the precipice is lodged by the Advocate for the plaintiff. The Advocate for the plaintiff shall lodge the precipice in the office on or before 30-01-2009. ( R.Y.GANOO, J. )