1 chs985-10 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.985 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1539 OF 2009 M/s.Chandulal T. Parikh .. Plaintiffs Vs. M/s.R.M.Mehta & Co. .. Defendants Mr.Darshan Mehta i/b M/s.Dhruve Liladhar and Co. for the plaintiffs Ms.Sbubha Pawar i/b M/s.R.Parekh and Co. for the defendants CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 3, 2010 P.C. : 1. The defendants have moved this Chamber Summons for condonation of delay of one year in filing Vakalatnama in Summary Suit. The explanation on affidavit is that the defendants engaged Mr.Ravindra Parekh, Advocate to file Vakalatnama and contest the suit. The packet containing the papers were received by the clerk who worked with the defendants only for a period of two to three months and later on he came to be removed. He had no experience of court matters and therefore, papers were not handed 2 chs985-10 over to Mr.Parekh though he was to appear and file Vakalatnama. 2. The explanation is stated to be false and not bonafide by the plaintiffs in their affidavit in reply. They have stated that this could not be a ground to condone the delay of one year inasmuch as if they have no knowledge then how could they locate the matter with the assistance of the Advocate, has not been clarified at all. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the affidavit in reply, I am satisfied that the facts peculiar in this case and in the interest of Justice, delay deserves to be condoned. Explanation is not such as could be termed as false and malafide. Defendants can defend the claim provided they pay cost quantified at Rs.2,500/- which is condition precedent. 4. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of cost quantified as above. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )