IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 834 OF 2009 M/S. ALLIED SALES AGENCY THROUGH PROPRIETOR RAJEEV MURARKA ... Applicant Versus CG-PPI ADHESIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY S. H. PUROHIT ... Respondent Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 5th November, 2009 P.C. In the above Civil Application, the Applicant who is the original petitioner has filed an application and prays to modify clause (e) of para 14 of Order dated 22nd July, 2009, to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,34,125/- which was to be deposited on or before 7th August, 2009. 2. The occasion arises to file this application on account of the fact that applicant had moved before the Trial Court. The Trial Court refused to accept the said amount on the ground that the period has expired and as such, the applicant would have to make an application before this Court for extension. The above application stating the reason as to why the said amount was not deposited in time is moved before this Court. The principal reason is that the applicant had to make financial arrangements and in the said circumstances there has been an over lap of time. The learned Counsel for the respondent who is the original petitioner stated that the same is not bonafide and in fact incorrect or false statement is made to seek extension of time. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to Order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed in the above Writ Petition No: 247/2009 by A.H. Joshi J. It has been specifically observed in the Order that learned Counsel was granted time to seek instructions from the applicant. On the basis of the statement made on behalf of the applicant, it has been recorded in the said Order that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit in the Trial Court half of the amount of Rs. 5,34,125/-. The learned Counsel states that averment made in the application that the applicant does not have the financial wherewithal is contrary to the Order dated 22nd July, 2009 and therefore a false statement has been made. The learned Counsel submitted that the Advocate for the applicant in fact had taken instructions from his client before passing of the Order dated 22nd July, 2009. The learned Counsel for the respondent therefore submits that this Court should not show any indulgence to the applicant. 4. No doubt there is some callousness on the part of the applicant, however, considering the fact that the applicant was already granted time till 7th August, 2009. I am inclined to grant time to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant is now ready with the amount and also considering the fact that the suit involves a money claim, in my view interest of justice would be served if respondent is adequately compensated by way of costs for the prejudice caused. 5. The Civil Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause 7. The time to deposit the said amount of Rs. 5,34,152/- is extended upto 13th November, 2009. The applicant to note that no further application for extension of time would be entertained. 6. Taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant and the prejudice caused to the Respondent herein, in my view this is a fit case wherein awarding of cost to the Respondent is warranted. The Applicant therefore, to pay the Respondent cost of Rs. 20,000/-, to be paid on or before 13th November, 2009. 7. The payment of costs is a condition precedent and on producing the receipt for payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/-, that the said amount would be accepted by the Trial Court on 13th November, 2009. If the said costs are not paid the benefit of this Order will not ennure to the applicant and resultantly the above Miscellaneous Civil Application would stand dismissed. 8. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 13th November, 2009 at 10.00 a.m. 9. Civil Application is accordingly disposed off. R. M. SAVANT, J. EV