1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.769 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3835 OF 2003 Madhusudan Shrikrishna ..Plaintiff. Vs. M/s. Emkay Exports and others ..Defendants. .... Mr. N.D. Jaywant for the Plaintiff. Mr. Rizvi Nasar Ali i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Defendants. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th July, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Chamber Summons has been taken out under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for leave to the Defendants to make payment of the decreetal amount by 24 monthly installments. 2. The averment which is made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support which has been filed by the Third Defendant is that he ‘is retired’ 2 and his business “is also not doing too well”. The averment in itself is vague and bereft of any particulars. What business is being carried on is not explained. Nor are any details of the financial position disclosed. From the admitted position before the Court it is undisputed that an ex parte decree was passed on 20th February, 2004. The Defendants took out a Notice of Motion for setting aside the decree which was made absolute by a Learned Single Judge on 13th September, 2004. The Plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench on 2nd June, 2008. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge and confirmed the ex parte decree. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Defendants was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2nd March, 2009. The Chamber Summons has been taken out on 6th May, 2009. According to the Plaintiff – decree holder the amount due and payable under the decree as on 1st July, 2009 is Rs.12,47,980/-. In paragraph 6 of the reply the allegation made by the Third Defendant about his financial position has been denied. On the contrary it has been stated that the Third Defendant is carrying on business of manufacturing and export of garments at Kandla in the name and style of M/s. Jiya Exim Company as 3 a proprietor and the firm is operating from Shed No.175, Sector 1 of the Kandla Free Trade Zone and that the registered office of the firm is at E/006 Apna Ghar Society, Swami Samarth Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The address is stated to be the place of residence of the Second and Third Defendants. The information is stated to have been obtained from the website of the Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhi Dham. No rejoinder has been filed to controvert what has been stated in paragraph 6 of the reply. 3. There is absolutely no merit in the Chamber Summons. The Defendants have made a palpably vague plea in regard to the nature and state of their business and financial position. Having regard to the fact that the decree was passed as far back as on 24th February, 2004, the period which has been sought by the Defendants of two years to make payment of the decreetal amount in installments is manifestly unreasonable. The Chamber Summons shall accordingly stand dismissed. Stay refused. *****