( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3796 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3796 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3796 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.3079 OF 2006 SUIT NO.3079 OF 2006 SUIT NO.3079 OF 2006 Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. ...Plaintiffs V/s. ICI India Ltd. ...Defendants Mr.Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Ventures for the Plaintiffs. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd December, 2008. DATED : 2nd December, 2008. DATED : 2nd December, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Suit came to be dismissed on 26th February, 2008 by the learned Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. This happened because Plaintiffs did not take steps to serve the writ of summons. 2. Defendants have been served with the Notice of Motion. Affidavit of service is filed today, which is ( 2 ) taken on record. 3. It is seen that the Plaintiffs lodged the writ of summons with the Sheriff of Bombay for effecting service upon the Defendants on 4th December, 2006. Thereafter, monies were paid on 4th December, 2006 itself. The returnable date in the Suit was 12th February, 2007. It is clear that the Plaintiffs did not follow the matter with the Sheriff of Bombay and looked into whether any packet was sent or after the packet was sent, it has come back duly served. It appears that though the matter ought to have come before the Chamber Judge on 12th February, 2007, it did not appear so. In my view, this resulted in allowing the Plaintiffs and their Advocate to remain calm and quiet and not vigilant. It appears that when this Suit came up before the Prothonotary & Senior Master, all of a sudden on 26th February, 2008, the Prothonotary & Senior Master did not grant any adjournment and dismissed the Suit for not taking steps. 4. In the normal case, the Court would have been justified in dismissing the Notice of Motion. The Plaintiffs took out this Notice of Motion for restoration of the Suit. Copy of the same was served upon the Defendants. Despite this, the Defendants ( 3 ) have not come before the Court to oppose the request. This is something which makes me to consider the request of the Plaintiffs for granting the relief particularly when the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs conceded that there appears to be some lapse in his office in the matter of following with the Sheriff’s office as to whether the writ of summons is duly served or not. In my view, interest of the Plaintiffs should not suffer for not taking active steps either by the staff of the Plaintiffs or by the staff of the Advocate for the Plaintiffs. I am observing this by keeping in view that the Plaintiffs are a public limited company. In my view, a lenient view is required to be taken in the wake of absence of defendants before this Court in this Notice of Motion. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief accordingly. Accordingly, I have passed the following order. "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" ". The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Suit is restored to the file of this Court. 2. Returnable date in the Suit is now fixed as 3rd March, 2009. Office to issue writ of summons accordingly. Plaintiffs to ( 4 ) serve the writ of summons by Registered Post A.D. through Postal Department, Government of India. Copy of the Writ of summons be served alongwith the copy of the plaint upon the Defendants through courier." 5. Suit stands adjourned to 3rd March, 2009 before the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, for directions. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)