IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1354 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1354 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1354 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO. 3256 OF 2007 SUIT NO. 3256 OF 2007 SUIT NO. 3256 OF 2007 Chandrashekhar Achyut Mulye & Anr. ...Plaintiffs vs. Vijay Harishchandra Powale ...Defendant And The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. ...Respondent Mr.J.J. Kini i/b. Mr.Suresh Dubey for the Plaintiff.s Mr.K.K. Jadhav for Applicant/Defendant in support of Chamber Summons. Mr.S.A. Vichare, Representative of Court Receiver present. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the defendant. 2. The defendant has taken out this Chamber Summons for recalling the order dated 9th September,2008 passed by this Court in Suit No.3256/2007. 3. By consent order dated 19th December, 2007, this Court (Coram : D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) was pleased to record the consent terms of the parties whereby it was - 2 - agreed by the defendant herein to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month till 1st October, 2007 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver had fixed the meeting on 28th July, 2008 and six weeks time was granted to the defendant to deposit arrears of royalty amounting to Rs.2,76,000/-. This amount was not paid by the defendant within the aforesaid period. The defendant was in arrears of the amount of Rs.1,23,000/-. An application was made for extension of time which was granted by the Court Receiver. Since the amount was not deposited, extension was not granted. 4. However, thereafter, the defendant has deposited the balance amount of Rs.1,23,000/- by an account payee cheque drawn in favour of the Court Receiver. It is, therefore, submitted that the earlier order dated 9th September, 2008 may be recalled. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the request made by the defendant. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of - 3 - the case, no indulgence may be granted in favour of the defendant in lieu of his past conduct. 6. In my view, since the defendant has already deposited the balance amount with the Court Receiver, the earlier order dated 9th September, 2008 will have to be recalled. Chamber Summons No.1354/2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Chamber Summons is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. So far as Chamber Summons No.855 of 2008 is concerned, since the defendant is seeking the modification of the consent order passed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, it would be appropriate if the Chamber Summons is heard by the same court. Defendants to take appropriate steps. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)