1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.114 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.245 OF 2007 Rakesh Surendra Bhalla .. Petitioner Versus Smt.Pramila W/o.Raviraj Phalpher and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ajit Karwande for petitioner Mr.H.G.Misar for Caveator/respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th January 2009. P.C. . This is a chamber summons for condoning the delay of nine days in filing the affidavit in support of the caveat. The caveator in the affidavit in support has stated in paras 6 to 8 as to how the caveator who was residing at Delhi was unable to give instructions and details to the Advocate to file affidavit in support of the caveat. While it is true that the affidavit in 2 support enlists her case, as far as merits are concerned, I am not in agreement with Mr.Karwande that the delay should not be condoned because no explanation is set out for the delay. Unexplained delay cannot be condoned is the submission, based upon the pleas raised in the affidavit in reply. 2. In my view, considering the peculiar facts as set out in the affidavit in support and that the caveators are married daughters of the deceased, residing at Delhi, delay is condoned. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)