1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 644 OF 1983 ALONGWITH SUIT NO. 645 OF 1983 ALONGWITH SUIT NO. 648 OF 1983 ALONGWITH SUIT NO. 649 OF 1983 ALONGWITH SUIT NO. 650 OF 1983 AND SUIT NO. 650 OF 1983 Bank of India. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Kamani Tubes Ltd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Awais A. Ahmedji i/b. Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Amrita Joshi i/b. V.P. Vaze for Defendant 5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 27th JULY 2009. P.C. :- It is stated that the Defendant – Company is before B.I.F.R. However, the Plaintiffs’ Advocate state on instructions that the Plaintiffs have assigned their claim in favour of M/s. Kalpana Saroj & Associates and it is that entity which will proceed to recover the amount in the Suit. 2 2. Beyond this, there is nothing stated nor any documents placed on record to show that anybody other than the Plaintiffs is interested in the claim and therefore, should be substituted or added as a party – Plaintiff. The statement made by the Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiffs is clear inasmuch as the Bank is no longer interested in recovering the amount in the Suit. 3. The Court is, therefore, left with no alternative but to dismiss the Suit for want of prosecution. It is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, to stand vacated. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)