1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 827 OF 2008. IN SUIT NO. 4628 OF 1994. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Mumbai : Plaintiffs versus Sterling Computers Limited and ors. : Defendants. Shri S.I.Shah for the Plaintiffs. Shri A.H.Mody i/by M/s.JMB Partners for the Defendants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Chamber Summons, the Applicants/Plaintiffs seek amendment to the cause title of the Plaint in terms of the Schedule-I annexed to the Chamber Summons. 2. The said amendment is necessitated on account of the fact that there has been change in the name of the original Defendant 2 No.1 from “Sterling Computers Limited” to “M/s.Shiva Compulink Limited”. It appears that the said M/s.Shiva Compulink Limited had filed its Written Statement pursuant to the Writ of Summons served upon the original Defendant No.1 Sterling Computers Ltd. In the said Written Statement the said fact that the name of the original Defendant No.2 has been changed to Shiva Compulink Ltd has been mentioned. However, thereafter correspondence ensued between the advocate for the Plaintiffs and the advocate for the Defendant No.1. The advocate for the Defendant No.1 vide their letter dated 17.10.2006 informed the advocate for the Plaintiff that the name of their clients has been changed to Shiva Compulink Ltd and, therefore, requested the advocate for the Plaintiffs to take necessary steps for changing the name of original Defendant No.1 in the cause title of the Plaint. The advocate for the Plaintiffs thereafter vide their letter dated 22/1/2007 informed the advocate for the Defendant No.1 that they have failed to furnish the address of the said Shiva Compulink Ltd though they had addressed the said letter dated 17.10.2006. 3. The above Chamber Summons has been opposed on 3 behalf of the Defendants by filing an Affidavit in Reply dated 24.7.2008. The relevant para in the said Affidavit in Reply is Para No.2 wherein it has been stated that on account of the delay, latches and failure on the part of the advocate for the Plaintiff to take requisite steps to amend the cause title of the Plaint, the suit is “abated” against the said Shiva Compulink Ltd. It is now sought to be contended across the Bar on behalf of the Defendants that though the phraseology used in the Affidavit in Reply is that the suit is “abated”, in fact, it is time barred against the said Shiva Compulink Ltd., reliance for which is placed on the Written Statement filed in the year 2000 by the Defendants. 4. In my view, the said submission cannot be accepted in the light of the correspondence that has ensued between the parties and also in the light of the fact that the name of the original Defendant No.1 has merely undergone a change, for which, amendment the above Chamber Summons has been filed. The Chamber Summons is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in the 4 cause title of the Plaint within a period of eight weeks from date and serve an amended copy of the Plaint on the concerned Defendants within four weeks thereafter. [R.M.SAVANT, J]