:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2008 Mrs.Madhu Ramesh Vithalani & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Miss. Ratna N.Suvarna ....Respondent ====== Mr.M.G.Barve Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.M.Janardhanan Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Trial court in a Summary Suit refusing to condone the delay in filing the Vakalatnama. 2. The petitioner before me is the original defendant in the Summary Suit. They are defendant nos.1 and 2 to Summary Suit No. 12 of 2006 filed by the original respondent for recovery of sum of Rs.4,25,209/- alongwith interest. :2: :2: :2: 3. The petitioner no.1 filed an Application to seek condonation of delay in filing the Vakalatnama, inasmuch as, she pointed out that her father was seriously ill at her native place at Gujarat. She went to Gujarat and returned on 11.6.2006. She ought to have filed her Vakalatnama in the Summary Suit, but, due to the above difficulty she could not file the same. Therefore, the delay in filing the Vakalatnama be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. The application was filed on 31.8.2006. That application was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff. 5. In my view, the learned Judge has taken a hyper technical approach, inasmuch as, without disputing the illness and the fact that the first petitioner went to her native place in Gujarat, the Learned Judge insisted upon filing of a Medical Certificate. The application was made belatedly, but, for the delay the plaintiffs could have been compensated by way of payment of costs. The suit summons were served on 17.3.2006. The Vakalatnama was purported to be filed on 31.8.2006 accompanying an Application for leave to defend. While :3: :3: :3: it is true that the defendant returned on 11.6.2006 she could have made arrangement for filing the Vakalatnama earlier, but, by that itself should have been no ground to refuse the request. The matter could have been decided, if the request had been accepted by taking the Vakalatnama on record after imposing costs. 6. In the peculiar facts of this case, it is directed that the Vakalatnama of the Original Defendants in Summary Suit No.12 of 2006 be taken on record after they pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the original plaintiff within a period of two weeks. Costs condition precedent. If costs are not paid, the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. If costs are paid, the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders on the application for leave to defend, after hearing both sides. Petition disposed off. No costs. *******