1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1541 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.503 OF 1996 Sheela Sohanlal Ghai and Ors. .. Plaintiffs Versus Snehlata w/o.Venikatesh Banavale .. Defendant Ms.Shweta Sharma i/b. Ravah Shah & Co. for defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in Suit No.1055 of 1989 and for plaintiffs in Suit No.503 of 1996 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : November 17, 2009. P.C.: 1] It is stated that all parties to this chamber summons have been duly served. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that they are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and, therefore, entitled to all properties more particularly set out in the schedule to the plaint. In consequence thereof, relief of possession and injunction has been sought. 2] This chamber summons is for amendment to the plaint and it is 2 stated in the affidavit in support that Court Receiver, High Court has been appointed receiver of property at Thane, which is more particularly described in para 3 of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons. Formal possession of the property was taken. However, representative of Court Receiver on reaching site found respondent No.2 to be in possession. Thereafter, possession of the Thane shop/ premises could not be handed over. Reliance is placed upon an order dated 25th August 2009 in Notice of Motion No.3970 of 2007 and it is contended that the third party has no right, title and interest in the property. The property is estate of the deceased and, therefore, available for distribution. 3] None of the statements in the affidavit in support have been denied or controverted. There is no affidavit in reply. Since, the presence of the respondent would be necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the controversy, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Let amendments be carried out within ten days from today. 4] Since both sides have stated that in the main matter evidence be recorded in Court and one of the witness of plaintiff is under cross 3 examination so also Mr.Lad learned Advocate appearing for plaintiff in Suit No.1055 of 1989 making a statement that plaintiffs in the Suit No. 1055 of 1989 desire to examine two more witnesses, let recording of evidence in Suit No.1055 of 1989 so also the present suit i.e. Suit No.503 of 1996 be held in Court together. Place the matter on 11th December 2009 at 3.00 p.m. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)