Ravindra Gokal v. V. Venkateshwar Rao

14.chs.1837.2011.ss.4379.98.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1837 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1694 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 4379 OF 1998 Ravindra Gokal .. Plaintiff Vs.

Venkateshwar Rao .. Defendant Mr.Naushad Engineer a/w. Mr.Jayesh Mestry i/b RMG Law Associates for applicant/plaintiff.

None for defendant.

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2016 P.C.

At the outset, the counsel for the applicant-plaintiff states that in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support, the figure of 'Rs.12,40,000' should be read as 'Rs.14,40,066'.

The original claim in the suit is for Rs.23,66,758 plus interest. The plaintiff had taken out chamber summons bearing No.1694 of 2009 for restoring the suit which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. That chamber summons was dismissed for non-prosecution. Against that order, the plaintiff has taken out the present chamber summons. Shraddha Talekar PS 1/2

14.chs.1837.2011.ss.4379.98.doc I have considered the affidavit in support. For the reasons mentioned therein, the chamber summons is allowed and the order dated 11th October 2011 is recalled. Chamber summons No.1694 of 2009 is restored to file. The chamber summons stands disposed accordingly. (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shraddha Talekar PS 2/2