1 JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMON NO. 566 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1783 OF 2009 Manishkumar Ramesh Sancheti. ... Plaintiff. V/s. M/s. Pankaj Investments & Ors. ... Defendants. Ms. Krupa Kashid i/b. S.K. Jain & Associates for the Plaintiff. Mr. N.V. Gangal i/b. Nilesh Masurkar for Defendant 2. Mr. Gajanan Savagave for Defendant 7. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd APRIL 2010. P.C. :- By this Chamber Summons Defendant No.2 wants that delay of 149 days in filing Vakalatnama in the Summary Suit be condoned and the Vakalatnama be taken on record. Affidavit in reply to the Chamber Summons is not filed. Perused the text of the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. 2. In my view, the delay in filing the Vakalatnama can be condoned by putting Defendant No.2 to terms in the nature of 2 costs for granting this Chamber Summons. I am inclined to fix the costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Plaintiff within a period of 10 days from today. Once Defendant No.2 files Vakalatnama, the Plaintiff can take out the Summons for Judgment which can be considered on merits. Hence, the order :- (i) The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) Defendant No.2 to pay to the Plaintiff costs of Rs. 5,000/- on or before 5th May 2010. Costs to be paid directly to the Plaintiff. (iii) Defendant No.2 to file Vakalatnama on 6th May 2010. At the time of filing of Vakalatnama, Defendant No. 2 shall produce the receipt of having paid the costs. If the Vakalatnama is already filed, Office to peruse the receipt for having paid costs and then accept the Vakalatnama. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)