- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1862 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1192 OF 2000. Modern Educational Social & Cultural Organisation. ..Plaintiffs. vs. AQSA Marketing. ..Defendants. .... Mr.Deepak Jadhav, for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Anoop Sharma, i/b. S.M.Kazi, for the Defendants. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2009 : 28TH JANUARY 2009 : 28TH JANUARY 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiffs for condonation of delay of 436 days in taking out the chamber summons and for setting aside the order dated 3rd October 2007 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master transferring the suit to the list of undefended suits. The plaintiffs had also sought permission of the Court to file their written statement on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper. 2. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.6,72,425.75 comprising of principal amount of Rs.2,02,282.25 and interest thereon of Rs.4,72,425.75 allegedly recoverable from the defendants for the period from 2nd June 1997 to - 2 - 23rd February 2000. 3. It is the defendants’ case in his affidavit in support of the chamber summons dated 16th December 2008 that he had engaged the services of an Advocate immediately upon being served with the writ of summons in the matter. It is stated that the defendant no.1 had also given instructions to his Advocate to draft the written statement in the suit. He states that his Advocate had given a copy of the written statement to him in the month of April 2008. However, he was unable to attend the office of his Advocate since he was required to go out of Mumbai frequently, as his mother was serious and he was required to attend to her. He has stated that on account of constant stress and pressure, he was unable to attend the office of his Advocate. He has stated that he has affirmed his written statement in December 2008 and forwarded a copy of the same to the plaintiffs. 4. The chamber summons is opposed by the plaintiffs. They have pointed out that the reasons given for not filing their written statement on time are devoid of any particulars. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties. - 3 - The order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master transferring the suit to the list of undefended suits is dated 3rd October 2007. The suit came up for ex-parte decree before this Court only in November 2008, when the suit was adjourned on the ground that the chamber summons was taken out to take the plaintiffs’ written statements on record. 6. In my view, nothing substantial had transpired for a period of one year after the Prothonotay and Senior Master passed the said order dated 3rd October 2007. Allowing the plaintiffs to file their written statement will not cause any prejudice to the defendants but grave harm and prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs, if an ex-parte decree is passed against him. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. In view thereof, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), subject to the defendants paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs within a period of two weeks from today. Chamber summons is accordingly, disposed of. 7. Place the suit for issues on 16th February 2009. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]