IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Chamber Summons No.285 of 2008 IN Summary Suit No.2450 of 2005 Prabhudas Gordhandas Siddhapura ..Plaintiff. Vs. Premier Refrigeration Ltd and Anr ..Defendants. Mr Rakesh Agarwal i/b M. P. Vashi & Associates, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. Mr H. K. Menghani, Advocate for the Defendants in support. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, CORAM: V. C. DAGA, CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. J. J. DATED: 4. 03. 2008. DATED: 4. 03. 2008. DATED: 4. 03. 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant. 2. The defendant has taken out chamber summons with a prayer to allow him to file his appearance through Advocate after condoning delay of 549 days for the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of chamber summons. The learned counsel for the defendant has opposed chamber summons and placed reliance on two judgments of Delhi High Court reported in A.I.R. 2003 Delhi 415 (Rane Parkash and A.I.R. 2003 Delhi 415 (Rane Parkash and A.I.R. 2003 Delhi 415 (Rane Parkash and others Vs. Central Bank of India) and A.I.R. others Vs. Central Bank of India) and A.I.R. others Vs. Central Bank of India) and A.I.R. 1983 Delhi 280 ( Harprashad & Company Ltd, New 1983 Delhi 280 ( Harprashad & Company Ltd, New 1983 Delhi 280 ( Harprashad & Company Ltd, New Delhi V. Allahabad Bank, and Delhi V. Allahabad Bank, and Delhi V. Allahabad Bank, and others) others) others). 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that delay has not been properly explained. He took me through the contents in para nos. 3 and 6 of affidavit dated 11.2.2006 filed by the defendant in support of notice of motion. 4. In para 3 defendant no.1 has admitted service of the summons on 1.8.2006 through the Bailiff from Deputy Sheriffs Office of the Bombay City Civil Court; whereas, in para 6 of the affidavit defendant no.1 has contended that in the month of January, 2008 while going through the old records, he could lay his hand to the proceedings of the above matter and he came to know that the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants for the recovery of refund of Rs. 5,51,000/-. In view of this contradictory statements, no case is made out for condonation of delay and permit appearance to defend the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant during the course of his submission submitted that he would not mind even if the cost is imposed by this Court. He left it to the discretion of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in rejoinder urged that heavy cost be imposed if at all this Court decides to allow chamber summons. 7. Having heard parties and in the interest of justice, delay is condoned. Defendant no.1 is allowed to file appearance through the Advocate subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in this Court or be paid to the plaintiff by demand draft within one week from today, failing which the notice of motion shall be deemed to have been rejected. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.