1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.794 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.182 OF 2009 Capchins (India) P.vt.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Shreya Health Care and Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Mahesh Devani for the plaintiffs Mr.D.P.Shah i/b M/s.Shukla and Shukla for the defendants CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : October 12, 2010 P.C. : 1. This is a Chamber Summons for condonation of delay in filing the Vakalatnama in a Summary Suit. It is stated that the delay is of 4 days. It is stated that it is explained properly in the affidavit in support and there are no malafides on the part of the defendants. 2. It is pointed out by the plaintiffs that the affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons is by defendant no.2 who is stating that he appears on behalf of himself and as power of attorney holder of defendant no.1. 2 3. Mr.Devani, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the power of attorney is is not validly executed and therefore, affidavit of the power of attorney holder should not be accepted as explanation for the delay by defendant no.1. 4. Mr.Devani brings to my notice that even Vakalatnama is not signed by defendant no.2 as power of attorney holder of defendant no.1. 5. Having regard to the facts that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and that no case of malafide is made out, Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to payment of cost quantified at Rs.1500/- condition precedent. Office to take the appearance on record only after scrutiny of the power of attorney executed by defendant no.1 allegedly in favour of defendant no.2. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )