1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2010 IDBI Bank Limited ...Petitioner Versus Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt. Ltd. & Others . ..Respondents Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr. Counsel, A.G.Damle, Ms. Suchitra Kambli i/b. Shukla & Shukla for the Petitioner Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, S.V.Doijode and Ms. Priyanka Kothari i/b. Doijode Associates for the Respondent No.1 and 2 Mr.M.r.Bhonsale, representative of Respondent No.1 present CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 11th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioners were defendant no.1 in the Long Cause Suit No.2184 of 1990 filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The learned Judge City Civil Court, passed decree on 11.6.2007 after recording of evidence. The present petitioners were absent before the Court. The petitioners filed Notice of Motion No.1272 of 2008 for setting aside 2 the decree dated 11.6.2007 on the ground that it is ex-parte decree. After filing this motion in June 2008, it appears that the petitioners were told that there is delay in filing the aforesaid notice of motion and the application for condonation of delay is required to be filed. The petitioners took out Chamber Summons No.524 of 2009 in August 2009 for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay. This Chamber Summons was decided by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by Order dated 30.1.2010 and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, by the said order dated 30.1.2010 this petition has been filed. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there was no intentional act on the part of the petitioners in not attending to the litigation and explanation is given in terms of affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons to the extent of delay. After having gone through the same, I am not inclined to accept that the said explanation is proper explanation. The petitioner’s advocate was in full know of the fact that the matter was on board in the month of April-May onwards and in fact, one lady Advocate was put incharge of the matter and she knew that the 3 matter was on board. Despite this nobody appeared and the decree came to be passed in May itself. 3. The petitioners kept quiet about the suit and did not attend to the suit and it is only in June 2008 i.e. practically after one year, came out with the case that the decree should be set aside. Thereafter, for one more year, the petitioners did not attend to the said matter and did not file application for condonation of delay and it is only in the year 2009, and after the office pointed out that application for condonation of delay is to be made, filed the said application. This clearly goes to show that the petitioners were not vigilant. They were not only negligent at the time of attending to the litigation but they were negligent as regards setting aside ex-parte decree. The Chamber Summons came to be filed two years after the decree came to be passed. In my view, the learned Judge has taken correct view of the matter and rejected the application. I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 4. It was sought to be argued by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that for the fault on the part of 4 the Advocate, the petitioners should not suffer. The proposition advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is well accepted. No authorities are required to be cited in support of that. However, it is required to be stated that the petitioners are not an individual. It is a bank having large staff. It was possible for the bank to depute a clerk to attend to the suit and keep track over the activities of the Advocate. Hence, even if it can be said that the advocate was negligent in attending to the matter, that does not absolve them as the petitioners were equally negligent in attending to the matter. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, petition cannot be entertained. Hence the order. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)