1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1075 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1597 OF 1989 Jaidev Ganeshdas Gorowara. ..Plaintiff. V/s. Shivdev Ganeshdas Gorowara. ..Defendant. And Capt.Harry Jaidev Gorowara & Ors. ..Applicants. Mr.Clive D’Souza i/b. Little & Co. for applicants. Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for defendant. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : APRIL 19, 2007. DATE : APRIL 19, 2007. DATE : APRIL 19, 2007. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the pleadings relevant for deciding the issue as to whether this is a fit case for condoning delay of over 10 years and for setting aside abatement. I am in agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the defendant that the affidavit in support does not make out any sufficient cause. The case of the applicants that they acquired knowledge about preferring present Chamber Summons 2 for the purpose of brining legal heirs of the deceased-sole plaintiff on record only on 25th July, 2006, deserves to be stated only to be rejected. It is not the applicants’ case that they were not aware about the death of the plaintiff nor it is their case that they were unable to take steps during the relevant period upto July, 2006 for the reasons beyond their control. At best the stand taken is one of ignorance of requirement of taking out application to bring on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. It is well established position that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Interestingly, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 would assert in the affidavit as filed that they were busy during the relevant period as they were required to fly to different places because of service condition. It is incomprehensible that none of the applicants could find time to take out application within the period of 10 years after death of sole-plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the applicant No.1 was also prevented from taking out the present application. Affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons is filed only by applicant No.3. Even for this reason, it is not possible to take the view that the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning delay of over 10 years and of setting aside 3 abatement. Hence this Chamber Summons should fail. 3. Counsel for the applicants would strenuously argue that in the interest of justice, the applicant be shown indulgence on condition that the applicants will pay costs. This argument does not commend to me. Counsel for the defendant has rightly invited my attention to the Public Advertisement given by the predecessor of the plaintiff expressly disowning the plaintiff and making it clear that the plaintiff shall have no right with regard to the suit property. Perhaps, the applicants were conscious of this position and for which reason were well-advised not to take out application for bringing on record legal representative of deceased plaintiff. Be that as it may, this is not a case for exercising discretion in favour of the applicants. Hence, dismissed.