IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.12 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1330 OF 2004 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.48 OF 1989 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.532 OF 1987 Enid A.Jhayden and Anr. .. Plaintiffs. Vs Anthony C.Henriques and ors .. Defendants. And M/s Guddu Constructions & Ors .. Respondents. Mr A.M.Saraogi i/b R.B.Jaiswal, for the applicants. Mr Ajay Mishra, for respondent nos 1 to 3. Mr Mannadiar, for defendant nos 1,2 3(a) to 3(d) and 5(a) to 5(g). Mr R.N.Kachare, for defendant no.4. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 21.04.2008 DATE : 21.04.2008 DATE : 21.04.2008 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs have taken out this Chamber Summons for the following reliefs:- (a) That pending hearing and final relief of the suit, the respondents be ordered and directed to disclose the status of the suit properties at Jogeshwari purchased by the respondents from the defendant nos 1 to 5 and respondent no.4 under the Sale Agreements dated 25/8/1994 and dated 14.9.1994 and to disclose whether the Agreements were subsequently cancelled or otherwise as alleged by Defendant no.2. (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the respondents be ordered and directed to produce Sale agreements dated 25.8.1994 and 14.9.1994 with defendant nos 1 to 5 and respondent no.4 respectively and also to produce the original Irrevocable General Power of Attorneys. (c) Pending hearing and final disposal the Respondents Nos 1 to 3 be ordered and directed to disclose whether they received back the consideration of Rs.8 lakhs each from Defendants and whether the possession of the suit properties is handed over back to Defendants or otherwise and to maintain status-quo. (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Respondents be ordered and directed to disclose whether 1/7th share allegedly purchased from Defendant no.4 is still in their possession or otherwise?" 3. The plaintiffs have also prayed for an appointment of a Court Commissioner to visit the suit premise. Learned counsel for the defendants, at the outset, invited my attention to an order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Notice of Motion No.17 of 2007. While disposing of the said notice of motion, learned Single Judge has recorded in the order as to how repeated efforts were made by the plaintiffs for seeking, almost, similar reliefs. That order itself, in my opinion, is sufficient to dismiss this chamber summons outright. 4. Mr Saraogi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, invited my attention to an affidavit of Cyril Edmond Henriques, defendant no.2, filed in Show Cause Notice No.2 of 2005 in Chamber Summons No.1330 of 2003, inter alia, seeking the same reliefs as prayed in the instant Chamber Summons. He placed heavy reliance upon the contents of paragraphs nos 23,24,25 and 26 of the affidavit to justify filing of the instant Motion. From perusal of the order dated 12.10.2007, it is clear that the affidavit of Cyril Edmond Henriques filed in response to the show cause notice no.2 of 2005 and the findings recorded while disposing of the said show cause notice by an order dated 9.8.2005 were taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. It further appears that Chamber Summons No.1330 of 2004 seeking an order directing defendant nos 1 to 6 to file an affidavit disclosing whether during pendency of the suit any of the defendants had sold, transferred or created third party interest and/or entered into agreements for sale of their share in the suit properties covered under the Will, was also perused and taken into consideration while disposing of Notice of Motion No.17 of 2007. It is further clear from the order dated 12.10.2007 that in the order dated 9.8.2005, by which the show cause notice no.2 of 2005 was disposed of, the defendant’s apology was recorded for having made an incorrect statement. Thus, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.10.2007 that, inter alia, the prayers made in the instant Notice of Motion were also made in the earlier proceedings and they were rejected by the speaking order. In the circumstances, this Chamber Summons deserves to be dismissed with costs. Order accordingly. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)