K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS suit wherein I. A. 6781/98 seeking leave to defend suit and condone delay of 21 days in filing thereof was filed, had been instituted by the plaintiff company, inter alia, alleging that defendant issued Cheque No. 183502 dated 6/09/1994 for Rs. 12,16,000. 00 in discharge of Hundi No. MO 11 dated 22nd July, 1994 drawn byn by M/s. Marudhar Electronics Ltd. on it which was also duly accepted by it. On presentation for payment by the plaintiff said cheque was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the bank account of defendant. On being informed about dishonour of cheque, the defendant vide letter dated 13/02/1995 intimated the plaintiff company that its director who signed the cheque, would be in Delhi and make payment thereof. It is further alleged that as per agreement between the parties and also as per market usage and practice the defendant is required to pay interest on the amount of said cheque @ 3% p. m. Calculated at that rate the total amount of interest from the date of issue of cheque till 31/03/1996 comes to Rs. 6,86,024. 00 It is further pleaded that defendant has failed to pay total amount of Rs. 19,02,024. 00 despite service of legal notice dated 4/08/1995. Decree for Rs. 19,02,024. 00 with interest pendente lite and future at the said rate and costs is sought to be passed by the plaintiff against the defendant. ( 2 ) ONE of the submissions advanced by Ms. Mandeep Kaur for plaintiff was that in addition to delay of 21 days in filing I. A. 6781 /98, there is also delay of more than an year in refiling it after removing the objections pointed out by the Registry on 30/06/1997 for which no explanation whatsoever has been offered nor any application seeking condonation of that delay been filed by the defendant. On the point of delay, it is alleged in the application that summons for judgment issued by this Court on 21/03/1997, was received by the defendant on 30/04/1997 at its office in Bombay. Summons was then sent to Delhi and only thereafter Advocates in Delhi advised the defendant about immediate necessity of filing application for leave to defend suit. It is further alleged that delay of 21 days in filing application thus deserves to be condoned. Summons was then sent to Delhi and only thereafter Advocates in Delhi advised the defendant about immediate necessity of filing application for leave to defend suit. It is further alleged that delay of 21 days in filing application thus deserves to be condoned. In the prayer made in the application in addition to seeking unconditional leave to defend suit, 21 days delay in filing application is also sought to be condoned under Rule 5 of Order, XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code. In the reply filed to the application on 7/08/1999 by the plaintiff it is stated that even if the defendant was served with summons on 30/04/1997 the application dated 31/05/1997 ultimately filed on 4/08/1998 is barred by time. It is further alleged that in the affidavit accompanying application sworn on 5/05/1997 there can possibly be no explanation for the delay in refiling application on the said date. It is denied that the defendant has even made out case for condonation of 21 days delay in filing the application. ( 3 ) OFFICE note dated 30/06/1997 which is material, is reproduced below: "may return the application as more than one reliefs are being sought by the applicant which is not permissible under Original Side Rules. Application filed by the plaintiff may be registered and listed before Court on 7/07/1997. " ( 4 ) FROM the endorsement made in the index filed alongwith application, at top left hand side it is manifest that the application was returned to defendant on 13/08/1997. Further, from the office seal appearing on die back of the last page of application it is a so evident that it was refiled on 4/08/1998 by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff in the reply. Obviously, counting the period from the date of said office objection dated 30/06/1997 there was delay of more than an year and delay of about an year calculated from 13/08/1997 on which date the application was returned, in refiling the application by the defendant. The defendant has not filed any application till date offering explanation regarding that delay and seeking condonation thereof nor any explanation whatsoever was furnished during the course of argument by Mr. Sandeep Mittal appearing for the defendant. Question of delay of 9 months in refiling memo of appeal after removing office objection came to be considered by this Court in the decision in Smt. Parvati and Others v. Sh. Sandeep Mittal appearing for the defendant. Question of delay of 9 months in refiling memo of appeal after removing office objection came to be considered by this Court in the decision in Smt. Parvati and Others v. Sh. Anand Parkash, AIR 1987 Delhi 90. Taking note of the ratio in Gurbachan Singh v. Mastan Singh, (1984) Ren. C. J. 619, the appeal was dismissed on ground of delay in refiling it. Assuming that application under disposal discloses sufficient ground for condoning 21 days delay in filing it, there is absolutely no reason for condoning the said delay in refiling it. The merits of the pleas on which the defendant has sought leave to contest suit need not be examined now, ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, application is dismissed and suit is decreed for Rs. 19,02,024. 00 with costs and interest pendente lite and future @ 12% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 12,16,000. 00 transaction being commercial in nature, against the defendant.