The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pursuit of legal remedies must be bona fide, and dilatory tactics may lead to the denial of delay condonation.

ORDER

1. This application is preferred by the applicant - original defendant to condone the delay of 1916 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21st December, 2015, in Summary Suit No.3189 of 2012 (High Court Suit No.1012/2012), passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent - original plaintiff came to be decreed and the applicant was ordered to pay the sum of Rs.83,60,925/- along with further interest on the principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the institution of the suit till realization.

2. Though the core controversy was in the nature of a money claim based on the negotiable instrument and written contract to pay the debt, the litigation has a chequered history.

3. The facts, necessary for the determination of this application, can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The plaintiff claims that her mother and defendant were family friends. The plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- on 19th November, 2008, at Mumbai, to the defendant. The latter had agreed to pay interest on the said loan amount at the rate of 2.1% per month, compounded monthly. The defendant never paid interest as agreed nor repaid the loan amount. Eventually, on 6th May, 2011, the defendant passed a receipt acknowledging the loan.

(b) On 5th July, 2011, the defendant issued two cheques, one for Rs.40,00,000/-, towards the principal amount, and another for Rs.36,88,925/-, towards interest component, payable on 19th October, 2011 and 19th March, 2012, respectively, on Nainital Branch of Vijaya Bank. Upon presentment the first cheque drawn for Rs.40,00,000/- was returned unencashed vide memo dated 21st October, 2011, on account of insufficiency of funds. The plaintiff addressed a statutory demand notice on 14th November, 2011 and upon failure of the defendant to comply with the demand, lodged a complaint under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the N.I. Act'), in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai. The cheuqe drawn towards the amount of interest, however, was not presented for encashment. Hence, the summary suit came to be instituted in the High Court for recovery of the said amount of Rs.83,60,925/- along with further interest at the rate of 2.1% compounded monthly on the principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from 5th July, 2011 till the institution of the suit and from the date of the suit till realization.

(c) The plaintiff claimed that the writ of summons was served on the defendant on 2nd May, 2012 and 17th May, 2012. Affidavits of service were tendered. With the enhancement in the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bombay, the suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as Summary Suit No.3189 of 2012.

(d) A spate of proceedings followed. As the plaintiff had sought leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, High Court, Bombay, the defendant took out a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No.673 of 2013, for revocation of the leave. By an order dated 30th July, 2013, the learned Judge, City Civil Court dismissed the said Notice of Motion No.673 of 2013 opining, inter alia, that the defendant failed to enter appearance within the period stipulated by Order XXXVII Rule 3.

(e) The defendant took out another Notice of Motion, being NM No.3723 of 2013, for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 30th July, 2013 in Notice of Motion No.673 of 2013. This Notice of Motion No.3723 of 2013 was also dismissed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, by an order dated 24th December, 2013.

(f) Another Notice of Motion, being NM No.459 of 2014 was taken out by the defendant to set aside the affidavits of service filed by the Bailiff and the plaintiff's clerk, in proof of service of writ of summons on the defendant and also for initiation action for perjury against those deponents. This Notice of Motion No.459 of 2014 was also dismissed by a learned Judge, City