:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1349 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.618 OF 1967 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1499 OF 2004 Manohar Bhaskar Kowley .. Plaintiff. Vs. M.B.Kowley and R.M.Kowley and M.H.Kowley and Ors. .. Defendants. And Rajendra M.Kowley & Ors. .. Applicants. And. Mrs.Malati H.Kowley & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Deepak Chitnis for the applicants. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for defendant no.1. Mr.Sanjay Kadam with Ms.Shobha Khawnekar i/b Kadam & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for defendant no.1 and counsel for the respondents. 2. The applicants have taken out these two chamber summons. Chamber Summons No.1349 of 2007 is taken out for the following reliefs: "(a) That the Applicants may be allowed to carry out the amendment in the title of the plaint and proceedings filed in the above matter in this Hon’ble Court, as more particularly mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto. :2: :2: :2: (b) That the abetment of the above suit against defendant no.2 and Defendant No.6 be set aside. (c) The delay, if any, in taking out the above Chamber Summons be condoned." . Chamber Summons No.1499 of 2004 is taken out for the following reliefs: "(a) the Applicants be allowed to be joint as Plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiff as per the Schedule annexed hereto in the plaint and all proceedings. (b) that the abatement of the suit be set aside. 3. Mr.Govilkar, learned counsel for defendant no.1 - judgment debtor opposed the prayers in the chamber summons on three grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the suit in which this chamber summons is taken out has already been decreed and the decree has also been executed and as of today nothing is pending in this court either in execution or otherwise. Secondly, he submitted that learned counsel for the applicants has failed to show at what stage and where the execution proceedings are pending as of today, and thirdly, he submitted that even if it is assumed that the applicants are entitled to execute the decree, it is barred by limitation. In support of the last contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.B.Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. V. Swadesh W.B.Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. V. Swadesh W.B.Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. V. Swadesh :3: :3: :3: Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 1999 (8) Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 1999 (8) Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 1999 (8) Supreme Court Cases 315. Supreme Court Cases 315. Supreme Court Cases 315. 4. It is true that the suit has already been decreed. In the execution proceedings this court on 11.11.1993 had disposed of two motions and one chamber summons by common order. By that order the direction was issued to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to execute the conveyance. The common judgment in the motions and the chamber summons was carried in appeals by the defendants and all the appeals were dismissed in June, 1994 by the Division Bench. Against the order of the Division Bench two S.L.Ps were filed in the Supreme Court which were subsequently converted into two appeals. During pendency of the appeals in the Supreme Court, on 14.6.1998 the plaintiff and in 2002 defendant no.2 died and hence their heirs, i.e. the applicants and the respondents herein respectively, were brought on record. These facts are not disputed by the defendants. The appeals were disposed of by the Supreme Court on 12th May, 2006. There is no dispute that during pendency of the appeals the Supreme Court had passed an interim order stating that defendant no.1 shall not be dispossessed from shop no.86 known as Pragati Furniture. That order was operating till disposal of the appeals by the Supreme Court vide :4: :4: :4: order dated 12.5.2006. In the circumstances though the conveyance was executed, according to learned counsel for the applicants, the possession of shop no.86 has yet not been handed over to them. It appears that the Division Bench while disposing of the appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.1993 the court receiver was appointed and was directed to take possession of shop no.86. According to learned counsel for the applicants, the court receiver did not and could not take possession of shop no.86 in view of the interim order of the Supreme Court. I would not like to enter into any other controversy at this stage of the proceedings. By these Chamber Summons the applicants have prayed for allowing them to be brought on record in the place of their deceased father and the respondent as the heirs of deceased defendant no.2. In my opinion, the interest of justice would be served if both the chamber summons are allowed in terms of prayer clauses as quoted in the second paragraph of this order keeping all the contentions of both the sides open to be raised and considered in the execution proceedings, if any, pending as of today. Order accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)