IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1768 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2869 OF 1986 Sumati P. Tawde & Ors. ..... Plaintiffs V/s. Purnima V. Tawade & Ors. .... Defendants And Mrs.Kamal @ Sunanda Meghashyam Dalvi .... Respondent. Mr.Shukla, for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.A.Bhagwat, for defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(e). Mr.H.P.Ghadigaonkar, for defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 3. None for the respondent. CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED: 16th JANUARY, 2009. P.C. 1. It is required to be mentioned that the respondent was served with the copy of the chamber summons. However, she has not responded. This is being stated on the basis of the copy of the letter addressed to the respondent, duly received by the respondent as per the endorsement thereon. This oral statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the respondent was served is being accepted. 2. The present suit is for partition of the property and the suit came to be filed by Mr.Parshuram Tawde, way back in the year 1986. In the course of trial, the plaintiffs have realized that the present respondent is not joined as a party defendant and that application is made for bringing heirs on record. This application was opposed by the defendants by contending that there has been a substantial delay and the same has not been explained and that it was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the respondent is a person who ought to have been joined as a party defendant. After having heard the counsel on both the sides, I am inclined to allow the chamber summons for the reasons given below. 2. It may be true that there is a delay in filing the present chamber summons. It may also be true that the present plaintiffs and the original plaintiff had knowledge that the present respondent is somehow concerned with the joint family property. But today, if the chamber summons is not granted, the said respondent will remain away from the partition of the suit property as and when the final decree will be passed. It is necessary to see that the present respondent is joined as party defendant so that she can remain present before the Court, place her contention before the Court as regards her share in the joint family property and that is how interest of justice will be met. If she is kept away from the present litigation, it will cause great prejudice. Though she may have a right to have certain properties at the end of the partition, she would not get it. In my view, chamber summons can be granted by awarding costs. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I pass the following order. ORDER 1. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. Plaintiffs to amend the plaint on or before 30-01-2009. 3. Serve upon the defendants or their Advocates, amended copy of the plaint. Serve upon the present respondent amended copy of the plaint as she will be styled as defendant. This should be done on or before 16-02-2009. 4. Suit set down for directions on 18-02-2009. 5. Plaintiffs to pay one set of costs of Rs.1,000/- to defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(e) and one set of costs at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 3. ( R.Y.GANOO, J. )