Bhagwanji S. Khatri And Pramod B. Khatri v. Kamal @ Kamal0a R, Hule And Dharmendra R. Hule And B.S.Khatri(Applicant)

202-NMS43-16.DOC Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 43 OF 2016 IN NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 661 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 417 OF 2012 Bhagwanji S Khatri & Pramod B Khatri ... Petitioners

Versus

Kamal alias Kamaloa R, Hule and Dharmendra R Hule

...Respondents

And BS Khatri ...Applicant None for the Applicant/Petitioners.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

14th February 2017 PC:- 1.

None for the Petitioners. This Petition was already dismissed once before on 27th June 2012. Even before that the Petitioners were absent. The Petitioners were again absent on 26th November 2013 at the time of hearing of their own Notice of Motion for restoration. Despite their absence, the Notice of Motion was made absolute. The Petition was restored. The matter reached again on 19th December 2013. None appeared for the Petitioners. It was 14th February 2017

202-NMS43-16.DOC placed for dismissal on 23rd December 2013. Then again none appeared. The Petition was dismissed for default. 2.

The present Notice of Motion seeks that a rejection order dated 15th July 2014 in Notice of Motion (L) No. 6661 of 2014 be set aside and that Notice of Motion be restored along with the Petition.

3.

The Affidavit in Support does not make any mention of the orders dated 26th November 2013, 9th December 2013, 19th December 2013 and 23rd December 2013 on all of which dates the Petitioners were absent. Apart from the material misstatements in the Affidavit in Support, there is no explanation for this continuous absence.

4.

This Notice of Motion is dismissed.

5.

It is clarified that the Petition itself has already been previously been dismissed. This Petition will not be restored under any circumstances. Too much indulgence has already been shown to the Petitioners. Enough is enough.

(G. S. PATEL, J.) 14th February 2017