IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1121 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2828 OF 1998 Mrs. Prabha Shenai ..Plaintiff Vs. Ispat Metallic India Ltd. ..Defendant Dr. Prakash Shenai Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff present in person Mr. U.J.Makhija with Mr. Raj Baid for Defendant CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 25th AUGUST, 2009 P.C. : 1. The Chamber Summons is taken out for striking out the defence of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant has adopted questionable methods in “obtaining favourable orders” in Notice of Motion No.2988 of 2006 in the Summary Suit . 2. The Defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend the suit on 22nd February 2000 and was granted two months’ time to file the Written Statement. On 21st November, 2006, a Learned Single Judge allowed the Notice of Motion taken out by the Defendant for condonation of delay and for permission to file the Written Statement. The Learned Single Judge noted that as a matter of fact, the Written statement was served on the Plaintiff on 5th March 2007, which was after a period of two months. This court observed that the Written Statement had inadvertently remained to be filed. 3. The Order of the Learned Single Judge was carried in Appeal in the Supreme Court. By a Judgment dated 14th July 2008 the Supreme Court modified the order of the Learned Single Judge by subjecting the Defendant to the payment of the costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-, within four weeks. The Court has been informed that the costs have been paid. Thereafter, issues have been framed in the suit and the Plaintiff has filed her Affidavit of evidence and a compilation of documents. The suit is now ripe for trial. 4. The Defendant has accordingly filed the Written statement in pursuance of the directions of this court, permitting it to do so and has paid the costs imposed by the Supreme Court, as a condition for the grant by permission to file the Written Statement. No case is made out for striking out the defence. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that, the Advocate who has entered appearance on her behalf has also appeared in certain other proceedings for the Defendants. The Plaintiff has remedies open in law. It is an admitted position that, an order for the discharge of the Learned Advocate has not been taken in this proceeding. The Chamber Summons has been filed by a Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff, who appears in person. The Chamber summons is not maintainable, since the Advocate who has entered appearance still continues to be on record. However, in order to give finality to the Chamber Summons and to expedite the disposal of the suit, having regard to the directions of the Supreme Court, expediting the suit, the Chamber summons has been heard on merits. There is no merits in the Chamber Summons 5. The prayer clause (a) for striking out the defence is misconceived. 6. The Chamber Summons shall accordingly stand dismissed as withdrawn. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)