1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4332 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 362 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 892 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 1997 IN NOTICE NO. 1774 OF 1997 Janardhan M. R. Pillai (deceased) through heirs GopiKa Nina Pillai and ors. .. Appellants Vs. Madhubhai Z. Patel and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Gaurang Mehta for appellants. Mr. Sanjay Kothari & H.N. Vakil i/by Mulla & Mulla for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. January 27, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants who are Judgment Debtors in Execution Application No. 204 of 1997. They have filed Appeal Lodging No. 362 of 2009 but there is a delay and, therefore, this Notice of 2 Motion is taken out to condone the same. 2. The impugned order allowing Chamber Summons No. 892 of 2008 in terms of prayer clause (a) therein was passed on 26/2/2009 and it is the contention of the applicants that they were not served at any time even after on 15/1/2009 when the Execution Court has passed an order for alternate service. It is further submitted that the applicants got the knowledge of the impugned order for the first time when they received a copy of the same by post at their address in Delhi and they further claimed that this order was received by them only some times in the second week of May, 2009. The appeal has been filed on 21/5/2009. 3. The respondents have opposed the Motion by filing an affidavit-in- reply and it has been pointed out that the learned Advocate for the applicants, who appeared before this court in the appeal proceedings, was sought to be served with a copy of the Chamber Summons but he refused to accept the same and did not furnish the applicants’ Delhi address. Hence, they had no alternative but to apply for the alternative mode of service and pursuant to the said order dated 15/1/2009 the notice was published in the newspaper at Mumbai as well as New Delhi on 9/2/2009. 3 It is submitted by the respondents that the applicants have been negligent consistently in appearing before this court and, therefore, there is no case made out of sufficient cause to condone the delay. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the affidavits filed by both the sides, we are satisfied that the delay caused deserves to be condoned but by levying costs. 5. Hence the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- and to be deposited with the office of this court within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the same. (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)