1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 638 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 718 OF 2009 Union Bank of India. .... Plaintiff. V/s. HDFC Bank & Others. ... Defendants. And Mr. Pradeep A. Khanvilkar & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Counsel a/w. Nainesh Amin for the Plaintiff. Mr. Madhusudan G. Gawde for Defendant 1. Mr. S.S. Kualkar i/b. Mahendra Kumthekar for Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. :- This is a Chamber Summons moved by the Plaintiff to amend the plaint. 2. The Chamber Summons is duly served on all Respondents/proposed Defendants. It is stated that Respondent No.1 is representing Original Defendant No.2 and is also a party in his independent capacity. The cause title of the Chamber Summons would demonstrate, according to Mr. Rao that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are one and the same. In these circumstances, the name of Respondent No.3 is deleted. 2 Mr. Rao states that he is appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent No.1 is already served. 3. There is no reply affidavit filed opposing the request made in the Chamber Summons. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that considering the controversy in the Suit and to effectively and properly deal with the same, presence of Respondents would be necessary. In these circumstances, the Chamber Summons is granted in terms of prayer clause (b). Amendment to be carried out within a period of three weeks from today. Mr. Rao states that he would waive notice/service of writ of summons on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 4. Liberty to apply for interim relief after amendments are carried out. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)