1 chs-1328-chs-708-04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1328 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 708 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 155 OF 2001 IN CASE NO. 103 OF 1996. Bombay Mercantiles Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..Decree Holders. vs. M/s. Eastern Engineers & Anr. ..Judgment Debtors. And Union of India. ..Intervenor/Applicant. .... None for Judgment Debtors. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Applicant/Intervenor. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH MARCH 2011. P.C. : The Execution Application No. 155 of 2001 was taken out by the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited-Decree Holders against the Judgment Debtors- M/s. Eastern Engineers and one Mr. Siraj J. Hamid. In the said Execution Application, the Union of India took out Chamber Summons No. 708 of 2004 praying for permission to intervene in the said Execution Application. The Execution Application was dismissed for default on 15th June 2005. Five years thereafter, the present Chamber Summons is taken out seeking condonation of delay of 1907 days and restoration of the Chamber Summons which was dismissed on 15th June 2005. The 2 chs-1328-chs-708-04 reason given in the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons is reproduced hereunder :- “3. I say that the above Chamber Summons filed for becoming intervenor in aforesaid execution application. I further say that applicant to recover more than 152 lakhs amount from the Judgment Debtors. I say that in the year 2005 the litigation of the department was handled by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The applicant was not aware of the dismissal of Chamber Summons. I say that thereafter while checking the status of the case it was found that in the year 2005 the Chamber Summons dismissed for non prosecution. I say that the order dated 15.06.2005 were not been communicated by the concerned Advocate to the Department. When the request has been made to department and Law Ministry about the status of the case. The said order was get informed by the Law Ministry after long gap on 2006.” 2. From the above, it is clear that admittedly, the Ministry of Law and Justice informed the Applicant about the said order in the year 2006. Not even an attempt is made to explain as to why the Chamber Summons is taken out in September 2010 when the Applicant was made aware about the said order in the year 2006. Again, the present Chamber Summons is not served on the Judgment Debtors. In fact, the Court is informed across the bar that the Judgment Debtor No.2 Shri Siraj J. Hamid has already expired. In view thereof, no cause, much less sufficient cause is made out by the Applicant for condoning the delay and setting aside the order dated 15th June 2005. The Chamber Summons is therefore dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]