1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1422 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2633 OF 2007 Khairunisa Haji Mohammed ....Plaintiff V/s. Afzal Haji Mohammed & Ors. ....Defendants Dr.Birendra Saraf with Ms.Priyanka Vegad i/b M/s.M.K. Ambalal for the Plaintiff. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/b Pushkar Patankar for Defendant Nos.1 to 7. Mr.R.D. Thorat for Defendant No.9. Mr.Abhishek Khare i/b Khare Legal Chambers for Defendant Nos.12 to 17. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This is the Plaintiff’s Chamber Summons for amending the plaint inter-alia by impleading the heirs of Defendant No.8 as Defendant Nos.8(a) to 8(d). 2. Defendant No.8 expired on 11.12.2008. The heirs of Defendant No.8 had in fact filed Appeal No.59 of 2009 in Notice of Motion No.3791 of 2007 in the above suit against an order and judgment dated 5.12.2008. It is not necessary to deal with the rival contentions between the parties in those proceedings. What is important to note is that the Division Bench by an order and judgment dated 9.7.2009 inter-alia held that : “since the 2 Appellants are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.8, the Plaintiff can carry out necessary amendments in the suit by impleading them as the Defendants.” Earlier the Division Bench also recorded the statement of counsel for the heirs and legal representatives of Defendant No.8 that he would accept the service of the writ of summons on their behalf and observed therefore that it would not be necessary for the Plaintiff to issue and serve the writ of summons all over again on the said Defendants. 3. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The amendments shall be carried out within four weeks from today. This order is without prejudice to the pending proceedings and interlocutory orders. The ad-interim order dated 27.8.2009 shall continue upto and including 31.1.2010 as against the newly added Defendants namely Defendant Nos.8(a) to 8(d). It is not necessary to grant any interim orders against other Defendants as there is already an interim order subsisting against them dated 6.10.2009 in Notice of Motion No. 3168 of 2009.