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. 1689 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 296 OF 1979 Smt.Shantibai K. Vardhan & ors. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Meera G. Patel and another. ... Defendants. C.Balsara with M.Modi i/b. K.Ashar & Co. for defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in support of chamber summons. N.G.Thakkar, senior counsel i/b. Vigil Juris for the plaintiffs to show cause. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 15th January 2008. DATED: 15th January 2008. DATED: 15th January 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendants have taken out this chamber summons to seek liberty to lead evidence in the matter and place on record all documents along with affidavit of documents filed by them. The chamber summons is taken out on the premise that one Mr.K.R.Ashar, senior partner of the solicitor firm was handling the matter. He left for heavenly abode. With the result, the documents inspected by him could not be traced out before the evidence was closed in the suit. The affidavit of Mr.Kiran Patel, defendant No.2 goes to show that somewhere in the month of August, 2007, the original documents relating to the subject matter of the suit could be traced out from the godown in which the files were kept by the firm of the solicitor. In this backdrop, it is urged that the defendants be permitted to file documents and lead evidence. 3. The chamber summons is resisted by the plaintiffs contending that the defendants are trying to protract litigation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that consciously legal advice was given to the defendants not to lead any evidence and, if conscious decision was taken by the defendants not to lead any evidence in support their defence, then the defendants should not be allowed to file documents and lead evidence. 4. Having heard both parties, it is not in dispute that the documents, which are sought to be filed, are the original documents. The affidavit of documents in relation to these very documents was already filed in the month of February, 1995 by the defendants. It is not the documents which have come in existence subsequent to the filing of the suit or subsequent to the closure of evidence. 5. In the above view of the matter, considering the nature of the documents having vital bearing on the outcome of the suit, I am inclined to grant this chamber summons in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- payable to the plaintiffs within one week from today, failing which, chamber summons shall be deemed to have been rejected. 6. It is further directed that the defendants shall file all the documents referred to in the affidavit (59 in number) within one week from today with notice to admit documents served on the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs are expected to reply within one week from the date of receipt thereof. The defendants to keep their witnesses present on the next date of hearing to prove the documents denied by the plaintiffs, if any. 7. By consent of parties, following additional issues is framed: "Whether the suit is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. Stand over to 6th February, 2008. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)