IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 285 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2629 OF 2001. M/s. Nanabhoy Jejeebhoy Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. .....Plaintiffs. Vs. Prataprao Salunke .....Defendant No.1. Singh Estate Rahiwashi Sangh (Regd.) .....Defendant No.2. AND Sudhar Samiti and Association duly registered under Society registration Act 1860, having its office at Ganesh Sadan RoomBNo.2, Church Road, Singh Estate Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101. .....Applicants. Mr Alemao i/by O.P. Shukla for the plaintiffs. Mr.R.R.Varma i/by Pooja Narvekar for Applicants. Mr. N.Y.Gupte wi9th Mr. Pl.P. Bhalbar for defendant No.2. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2009. P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the applicants to join them as party defendants in the Suit. 2. The applicants are the Registered Society having 767 members, who came to be in occupation of the subject matter of the suit property. The plaintiffs have no objection if the Chamber summons is allowed. 3. The learned Counsel for the defendant No. 2, which is a Society and was added pursuant to the order passed in a Chamber Summons taken out by them, opposed the Chamber Summons. He submits that some members of the defendant No.2 Society are also members of the Applicant Society. To my mind, it is not for the defendant No.2 to oppose the Chamber Summons particularly when the plaintiffs have no objection to the Chamber Summons being allowed. 4. The Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. 5. Chamber Summons to stand disposed of. [A.A.SAYED, J.]