1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 712 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 540 OF 2008 Babar Estate Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Sabirali Mazhar Hussain & Anr. ...Defendants. ------ Ms. Manorama Mohanty i/b M/s S.K. Srivastav & Co., for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Viraj Maniar, for the Defendants. ---- CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATE: 13th November 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. 2. The present Chamber Summons is filed by the Plaintiffs for directing the Defendants to give an inspection and copies of the documents mentioned in the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. Perusal of the schedule discloses that these documents are referred to by the Defendants in their affidavit-in-reply to the Notice of Motion taken out by the Plaintiffs for interim reliefs. 2. The learned counsel for the Defendants submits that the inspection of the documents referred to in the reply to the Notice of Motion is already given to the Plaintiffs. He relied upon two letters dated 1.4.2008 and 7.4.2008 in this regard. 2 3. Perusal of above two letters makes it clear that inspection of the documents referred in reply was already given to the Plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, however, submitted that the inspection of the document at Sr. No.1 in schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons is not given. 4. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 18.3.2008 filed by Defendant it is stated that Defendant No.2 duly cancelled and returned the said development agreement dated 15.1.2003 to the Plaintiff No.2 as per the letter dated 12.8.2003 addressed to Defendant No.2 and Plaintiff No.2 holds original development agreement dated 15.1.2003. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Chamber Summons is misconceived and same is dismissed accordingly. ( R.V. MORE, J )