1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1125 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2107 OF 2008 Melwani Finance Limited ...Plaintiff. V/s Mrs. Devika Ulhas Mehta & Ors. ..Defendants. Ms. R.M. Parchiwalla i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craige Blunt & Caroe for plaintiffs. Ms. P.U. Bhadade for defendant Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants. 2. Defendants have taken out this Chamber Summons for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment in summary suit. It is stated in the affidavit in support that immediately after service of 2 summons on defendants, parties were trying to settle the matter amicably out of court. Since the settlement talks were going on, defendants did not file reply. It is is further stated that even consent terms were prepared in May 2009 and the consent terms were to be filed in Court in June, 2009. However, for some reason, the said consent terms could not be filed. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the Summons for Judgment was served on defendants some time on/or before 20/11/2008. He submitted that the settlement talks began in May 2009. Even if period from May 2009 till the Chamber Summons was filed is excluded, there was still gross delay of almost 161 days from the date of service of the Summons for Judgment. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Order XXXVII Rule 3 sub- clause(4) and the proviso thereto and submitted that sufficient cause is not shown by defendants for condonation of delay. 4. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that the settlement talks were going on between the parties and that the consent terms were to be filed in this Court in June 2009, the said explanation is sufficient for the purpose of condoning delay caused in filing affidavit in reply to the Summons for 3 Judgment. In the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, it is stated by defendants that immediately after service of summons on defendants, settlement talks were going between parties and, as such, the said explanation is sufficient for condonation of delay. 5. Accordingly, delay in filing affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment is condoned. Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is disposed of. Reply to the Chamber Summons is already filed and it is taken on record. (V.M. KANADE, J.)