1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.566 OF 2004 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.566 OF 2004 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.566 OF 2004 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.192 OF 2002 SUMMARY SUIT NO.192 OF 2002 SUMMARY SUIT NO.192 OF 2002 Vijayta Audio World Limited ...Plaintiff Vijayta Audio World Limited ...Plaintiff Vijayta Audio World Limited ...Plaintiff Vs. Vs. Vs. Milestone Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ...Defendant Milestone Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ...Defendant Milestone Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ...Defendant ----- ----- ----- Ms.Shveta Patrawala i/b. D. Shah & Co. for Plaintiff Ms.Shveta Patrawala i/b. D. Shah & Co. for Plaintiff Ms.Shveta Patrawala i/b. D. Shah & Co. for Plaintiff Mr. N.N.Tated i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Defendant Mr. N.N.Tated i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Defendant Mr. N.N.Tated i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Defendant CORAM: ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 19TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 19TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 19TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This suit has been filed on 18th December . This suit has been filed on 18th December . This suit has been filed on 18th December 2001, summons was served on 24th January 2002. The 2001, summons was served on 24th January 2002. The 2001, summons was served on 24th January 2002. The Defendant’s Director was out of India between 18th Defendant’s Director was out of India between 18th Defendant’s Director was out of India between 18th January 2002 and 30th January 2002. Hence, appearance January 2002 and 30th January 2002. Hence, appearance January 2002 and 30th January 2002. Hence, appearance was not filed on behalf of the Defendants to contest was not filed on behalf of the Defendants to contest was not filed on behalf of the Defendants to contest the summary suit. the summary suit. the summary suit. 2. The Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for 2. The Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for 2. The Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for deposit of certain amounts, copy of which was served deposit of certain amounts, copy of which was served deposit of certain amounts, copy of which was served upon the Defendants on 26th April 2002 along with the upon the Defendants on 26th April 2002 along with the upon the Defendants on 26th April 2002 along with the copy of the plaint. copy of the plaint. copy of the plaint. 3. It is the Defendant’s case that the date of 3. It is the Defendant’s case that the date of 3. It is the Defendant’s case that the date of summons earlier served came to be misplaced because summons earlier served came to be misplaced because summons earlier served came to be misplaced because the concerned Director was out of India, upon the copy the concerned Director was out of India, upon the copy the concerned Director was out of India, upon the copy of the Notice of Motion being served the Defendants of the Notice of Motion being served the Defendants of the Notice of Motion being served the Defendants 2 sought to contest the suit. Vakalatnama of the sought to contest the suit. Vakalatnama of the sought to contest the suit. Vakalatnama of the Defendants came to be filed on 9th April 2002. Defendants came to be filed on 9th April 2002. Defendants came to be filed on 9th April 2002. 4. The Plaintiffs obtained Ex-parte decree. The 4. The Plaintiffs obtained Ex-parte decree. The 4. The Plaintiffs obtained Ex-parte decree. The Defendants sought to set it aside in another Notice of Defendants sought to set it aside in another Notice of Defendants sought to set it aside in another Notice of Motion. The Ex-parte decree came to be set aside on Motion. The Ex-parte decree came to be set aside on Motion. The Ex-parte decree came to be set aside on 25th February 2004. The order of Shri Justice Karnik 25th February 2004. The order of Shri Justice Karnik 25th February 2004. The order of Shri Justice Karnik dated 25th February 2004 shows the negligence of the dated 25th February 2004 shows the negligence of the dated 25th February 2004 shows the negligence of the Defendants for which they could not be punished. The Defendants for which they could not be punished. The Defendants for which they could not be punished. The Defendants were directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- Defendants were directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- Defendants were directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Plaintiffs. The costs were paid by a pay-order to the Plaintiffs. The costs were paid by a pay-order to the Plaintiffs. The costs were paid by a pay-order dated 28th February 2004. Thereafter the Defendants dated 28th February 2004. Thereafter the Defendants dated 28th February 2004. Thereafter the Defendants have taken out this Chamber Summons for condoning the have taken out this Chamber Summons for condoning the have taken out this Chamber Summons for condoning the delay of 64 days in filing the Vakalatnama. delay of 64 days in filing the Vakalatnama. delay of 64 days in filing the Vakalatnama. 5. The Defendants have already been allowed to 5. The Defendants have already been allowed to 5. The Defendants have already been allowed to defend the suit impliedly since the Ex-parte decree is defend the suit impliedly since the Ex-parte decree is defend the suit impliedly since the Ex-parte decree is set aside. The Defendants have already paid the set aside. The Defendants have already paid the set aside. The Defendants have already paid the costs. The parties are required to be heard on costs. The parties are required to be heard on costs. The parties are required to be heard on merits. The delay in filing the Vakalatnama is merits. The delay in filing the Vakalatnama is merits. The delay in filing the Vakalatnama is therefore, condoned. The Vakalatnama has been filed therefore, condoned. The Vakalatnama has been filed therefore, condoned. The Vakalatnama has been filed since 9th April 2002 and has remained under objection. since 9th April 2002 and has remained under objection. since 9th April 2002 and has remained under objection. The Vakalatnama shall be taken on record. The suit The Vakalatnama shall be taken on record. The suit The Vakalatnama shall be taken on record. The suit shall proceed in accordance with Order 37. shall proceed in accordance with Order 37. shall proceed in accordance with Order 37. 6. The Chamber summons disposed of accordingly. 6. The Chamber summons disposed of accordingly. 6. The Chamber summons disposed of accordingly. N.O.C. N.O.C. N.O.C. 3 (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)