IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1899 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3454 OF 2006 Bajaj Auto Ltd. ..... Plaintiff V/s. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. .... defendants Ms.Lata Dhru and Mr.Birendra Saraf i/by M/s.Dhru & Co., for the plaintiff. Mr.Sanjay Udeshi, for defendant No.1. Ms.Jyoti Ghag, for defendant No.2 & 4. Mr.P.G.Lad, for defendant No.3 CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED: 19th JANUARY, 2009. P.C. 1. This chamber summons is taken out by defendant No.3 for seeking orders to condone the delay of 58 days in filing the Vakalatnama and to have vakalatnama of Advocate for defendant No.3 on record. The original chamber summons is not on record. Copy is provided by the learned Advocate for defendant No.3. 2. Heard the learned Advocates of both the sides. Copy is received by the plaintiff. No affidavit-in-reply is filed. Considering the averments made in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons and considering the fact that defendant No.3 is the State of Madhya Pradesh, I hold that the delay has been reasonably explained and the chamber summons is required to be granted. Accordingly, I pass the following order. : O R D E R : 1. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 2. The Advocate for defendant No.3 shall file vakalatnama in the office on or before 23-01-2009. ( R.Y.GANOO, J. )