1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 408 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1431 OF 2005 Narinder Kumar Vij ...Plaintiff vs. Dinesh Shetty ...Defendant Mr.P.M. Shah with Mr.Ashwin R. Singh with Mr.Dharmesh Jain i/b. Mr.R.K. Singh for the Plaintiff. Mr.P.C. Kansara for the Defendant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Counsel for the defendant submits that since there is a gross delay in filing this summons for judgment, the suit itself may be dismissed in view of Rule 227 of the Original Side Rules. 2 The Counsel for the plaintiff, however, has 2 relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bankay Bihari B. Agrawal & others vs. Bhagwanji Meghji & Others, reported in 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 86. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has held that merely because there is a delay in taking out the summons for judgment, that itself does not create a right in favour of the defendants for seeking dismissal of the suit. 3 In my view, the Division Bench has also observed that that would be one of the factors which will have to be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether leave should be granted to the defendant in the suit or not. In my view, the ratio of the judgment squarely applies to the facts in the present case. Merely because there is delay in filing the summons for judgment, that would not be a ground for an automatic dismissal of the suit under Rule 227 of the Original Side Rules. However, since there is a gross delay in filing the 3 summons for judgment, in my view, it would be relevant factor for permitting the defendant to file his written statement. Hence, unconditional leave to defend is granted to the defendant. 4 Summons for Judgment, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)