1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.107 of 2009 in Testamentary Suit No. 63 of 2007 (Petition No.511 of 2007) Pradeep Parshuram Shinde ..Petitioner vs. Shindu Parshuram Shinde ..Respondent None for petitioner. Mr.Vivek Midha for respondent in support of chamber summons. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J. 25th November, 2009 P.C. 1 Perused the Chamber Summons, affidavit in support of the respondent and reply. On the last occasion, since the petitioner was appearing in person, I had adjourned the matter till today. It is stated that the petitioner attended the office of the caveator s Advocate and handed over the copy of the reply opposing the request in the 2 chamber summons. 2 Today the petitioner is absent. Advocate Mr.S.V.Pande has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf but even that is under objection. The said Advocate is also absent. The matter cannot be adjourned repeatedly. 3 Having perused the affidavit in support of the chamber summons and reply, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 45 days in filing the caveat and affidavit in support. Chamber Summons is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Office to take the caveat on record and process the matter further in accordance with law. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)