1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.167 OF 2005. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.167 OF 2005. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.167 OF 2005. IN SUIT NO.2079 OF 2003. M/s.Bhor Industries Limited. ...Plaintiffs. V/s. Vatsala Pillai. ...Defendant. Mr. Santosh Raje, advocate for Plaintiffs. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JUNE 6, 2005 DATE : JUNE 6, 2005 DATE : JUNE 6, 2005 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Raje, advocate for plaintiffs. Explanation offered in support of this application on affidavit, in my opinion, is not sufficient, to show indulgence of condoning delay which is almost 257 days. Advocate however, fairly accepts that it was mistake of the advocate which resulted in lapse in attending the office objection. If it is so, advocate to pay costs, quantified at Rs.2,500/- in the High Court Legal Service authority on or before 15th June, 2005. It is only on that condition, I am allowing this application in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b), so that the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate. 2 2. The suit will stand restored to its original number on payment of costs within specified time. Ordered accordingly.