: 1 : chs-516-08=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER OF SUMMONS NO. 516 OF 2008 IN NOTICE NO. 416 OF 2000 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2000 IN AWARD DATED 14TH MARCH, 1997 Amit Enterprises ..Applicant / Complainant v/s. Showbiz Cine Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent ......... Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the applicant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. The applicant who is shown as complainant had filed Execution Application No. 249 of 2000 and had taken out Notice No.416 of 2001 for execution of the award dated 14th March, 1997 passed in favour of the complainant. The affidavit of : 2 : chs-516-08=.sxw service as regards service of the said notice was not filed within time and that is how the notice was dismissed. This chamber summons is taken out for setting aside order dated 20th January, 2004 by which the said notice came to be dismissed. The plaintiff admits that there is a delay of 4 years and 10 days. Prayer to that effect is made. 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi for the complainant. Perused affidavit-in-support of the chamber summons. The affidavit admits that at the time when notice was issued, the complainant was in Bombay. That happened in the year 2001. The complainant admits that till 2005 he was in Bombay and thereafter he shifted to Amritsar and returned to Bombay only in the year 2008. According to him his advocate was keeping track on the matter and it is only after he came to Bombay in the year 2008, he realized that the notice has been dismissed. The complainant claims that his advocate was practicing in the Small Causes Court and he relied upon his advocate. This conduct on the part of the complainant clearly goes to show that he neglected to attend to the matter as he was in Punjab for 3 years and he relied upon his advocate cannot : 3 : chs-516-08=.sxw be accepted. There is no specific reason mentioned in the affidavit-in-support as to why complainant could not come to Bombay to attend to the matter. The complainant has not enclosed to the chamber summons, affidavit of the advocate to support his case. If this is the position, I hold that the complainant has not given sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 4 years and 10 days. Hence, I am not inclined to grant reliefs in terms of prayer clause (e) which should have been mentioned as prayer clause (a). Once it is held that delay cannot be condoned, consequential prayer for setting aside order dated 20th January, 2004 cannot be granted. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the chamber summons. ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)