1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1163 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2082 OF 2007 Dahisar Service Station ...Plaintiff vs. Industrial Development Bank of India ...Defendants Mr.B.S.Chandnani for the plaintiff Mr.M.P.Page for the defendant CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the defendants in support of the chamber summons. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff who has opposed the chamber summons. Prayer in this chamber summons is for condonation of delay in filing a reply to the summons for judgment. The learned counsel for the defendant pointed out the averments made in the affidavit in support and in particular averments made in paragraph 5 thereof. She submitted that more than sufficient explanation has been set out in the said paragraph for delay in filing the reply. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs pointed out that there was a delay in filing the Vakalatnama and now there is a gross delay in filing the reply to the summons for judgment. He submitted that the reasons assigned in the affidavit in support are very vague. He 2 submitted that the allegation that the concerned Branch Manager was not available is no explanation for such a long delay. 2 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the affidavit in support and in particular paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that summons for judgment was served to the Advocate for the defendant on 19 th March 2009 which was forwarded to the branch office of the defendant-bank and instructions were sought to file a reply. He stated that the concerned Branch Manager Ms Priya R. Saldhana who was fully conversant with the facts was on leave from 19th May 2009 till 12 th July 2010. It is stated that after she resumed, she joined another branch. There was no regular appointment made of the branch head of the concerned branch. Thereafter instructions were belatedly given to the Advocate for filing reply to the summons for judgment. It is true that there is a long delay in filing the reply. Occasion for seeking condonation of delay arise only when there is some default on the part of a litigant. There is a claim against defendant-bank in the sum of Rs.12,89,912.60 with interest thereon. Considering the explanation in the affidavit in reply, the delay deserves to be condoned. However, the plaintiff will have to be compensated by ordering payment of costs. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of costs is quantified at Rs.15,000/-. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : . Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to defendants paying costs of Rs.15,000/- of this chamber summons to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today. Payment of costs shall be condition precedent. . Registry to accept the reply within two weeks from the date on which amount of costs is paid. Summons for judgment shall be placed for hearing on 24 th February 2011. JUDGE