jpc CA1936-11WP439-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1936 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 439 OF 2010 Rajawadi CHS Ltd ... Applicant Versus Ashok Massaya Swamy and others ... Respondents Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the Applicant CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 2nd December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above Civil Application is filed for recalling of the order dated 10th June, 2011 rejecting the above Writ petition. The said rejection of the petition was on the ground that since there was only one defendant in the suit who is respondent no.1 to the above petition, against whom the writ petition is dismissed as no steps have been taken by the petitioner against him for restoring the petition. 2. The above petition has been filed challenging the order passed in the Chamber Summons which had been filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The said Chamber Summons was rejected jpc CA1936-11WP439-10.sxw 2 by an order dated 4 th December, 2009. It appears that the plaint was amended and though the suit was originally filed against one defendant, thereafter three more defendants were added. However, when the above petition was filed, due to inadvertence, unamended plaint came to be filed wherein, only one defendant was shown. This resulted in creating an impression that there was only one defendant in the suit who is respondent no.1 in the above petition and since the petition was dismissed against respondent no.1 for want of removal of the office objection, the petition does not survive. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr.Kulkarni has drawn my attention to the amended plaint, copy of which has been filed in the instant Civil Application at page no.9. The amended plaint discloses that there are three other defendants namely-(2)Smt. Pentamma Massaya Ravankal (3) Ms.Usha Massaya Ravankal &(4) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board. As stated herein above,in view of the unamended plaint being field,the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that there was only one defendant and therefore passed the order of dismissal of the writ petition. In my view, the above Civil Application would have to be allowed in the light of the aforesaid facts and the writ petition would have to be restored to file. The Civil jpc CA1936-11WP439-10.sxw 3 Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Resultantly, the Writ Petition is restored to file. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)