1 nms-1162-ss-932-02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1162 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 932 OF 2002. M/s. Hublal Udyog. ..Plaintiffs. vs. M/s. Sun Engichem Ltd. ..Defendants. .... Mr. R.C. Tripathi, i/b. J.P. Dubey, for Plaintiff. None for Defendant. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. By an order of this Court dated 3rd February 2002, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court passed the following conditional order in the above Suit : “J.P. Dubey for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and/or their advocate to remove office objection on the Plaint and get the same numbered and registered on or before 5.3.2002, failing which the Plaint to stand rejected under Rule 986.” 2. The Plaintiffs failed and neglected to remove the objections on or before 5th March 2002 and the Suit stood dismissed. The Plaintiffs have taken out the present Notice of Motion for setting aside the said order dated 3rd February 2002 after more than seven years. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs states that initially the Plaintiffs could not arrange payment of further 2 nms-1162-ss-932-02 Court fees and in the meanwhile the Plaintiffs lost track of the matter. No particulars as to how and when the Plaintiffs lost the track of the matter are provided. The question of the Plaintiffs loosing track of the matter does not arise since the Advocate who had remained present before the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 3rd February 2002 continues to appear for the Plaintiffs till date. 4. Again, in the above Notice of Motion, though the Advocate for the Plaintiffs has informed the Court that he had immediately informed the Plaintiffs about the conditional order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 3rd February 2002, the Plaintiffs have made an incorrect statement in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion dated 4th March 2009 as follows : “I have now learnt that the Plaint stood rejected on 6th March 2002 for non-payment of deposit of Court fees.”. 5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the Plaintiffs have not only not shown any cause for setting aside the conditional order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, after more than seven years but has in fact made statements on oath which are false and incorrect to his knowledge. The Notice of Motion is therefore, dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]