: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1252 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1566 OF 2009 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1253 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1567 OF 2009 Ambrose Joseph Creado .. Appellant V/s. International Airports Authority of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Satish Shah i/b. Mr. Satish P. Nagvekar i/b. Mr. Y.K. Tiwari with Mr. Shailesh Rai i/b. M/s. K.P. Tiwari & Co. for the Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Rajagopal i/b. Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal for Respondent No.1. Mr. B.P. Saraf i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandhy & Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 13 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The present Appeals from Orders have been filed to challenge the orders dated 12th November, 2009, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in L.C. Suit No.5204 of 1996 and in L.C. Suit No.5205 of 1996, by which the : 2 : Suits have been dismissed under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the trial Court had allowed the Chamber Summonses and directed the plaintiffs to join respondent No.2 as a party respondent. Those Chamber Summonses were allowed on 12th August, 2009. The plaintiff had requested that he be granted time of 14 days to amend the plaint. Accordingly, the matters were adjourned and fixed on 23rd September, 2009. The amendment was not carried out. The matters were adjourned again to 12th November, 2009. Since the amendment had not been carried out by the plaintiff till that date, the Court dismissed the Suits under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Shah, appearing for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had challenged the orders passed in the Chamber Summonses directing him to implead respondent No.2 herein as a party defendant. He, however, states, on instructions, that he does not wish to press his objection to the orders passed in the Chamber Summonses. He, therefore, submits that the Suit be restored to : 3 : file and the plaintiff be granted some time to carry out the amendment. 3. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, in my opinion, the Suit can be restored. This is especially because the plaintiff states that he does not wish to challenge the orders passed in the Chamber Summonses on 12th August, 2009 and prosecute the Appeal from Order (St.) No.23077 of 2009 and Appeal from Order (St.) No.23079 of 2009. It would be appropriate to grant some time to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment. 4. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 12th November, 2009, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in L.C. Suit No.5204 of 1996 and in L.C. Suit No.5205 of 1996, are set aside. Both the Suits are restored to file. 5. The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment by adding respondent No.2 to the array of defendants in the Suits within a period of two weeks from today. : 4 : 6. The Appeals from Orders are disposed of. 7. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1566 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order No.1252 of 2009 and Civil Application No.1567 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order No.1253 of 2009, do not survive and the same are dismissed. .......