1 chsw269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 269 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2007 X Y Z ... ... Petitioner. Versus The National Aviation Company of India Ltd. & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Petitioner present in-person. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Mr. Dipankar Das i/by M/s. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.1,2,5 & 6. Mr.Mihir Gheewala i/by M/s. Desai & Chirag for Respondent No.4. Mr. M. S. Bhardwaj for Respondent No.7. Mr. Shailesh Shah, Special Counsel with Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP, for Respondent No.8. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: By our order dated 28th April, 2010 passed in this writ petition we have set out the issues surviving for consideration in the petition and by the subsequent order dated 7th May, 2010 the Chamber Summons No. 315 of 2009 was disposed off with further direction to list the writ petition for final hearing on 8th June, 2010. At the 2 chsw269 request of the petitioner, who is appearing in person, the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned on 8th June, 2010, 29th June, 2010 and 13th July, 2010. 2. The petitioner has now presented one more Chamber Summons before us seeking leave to amend. We have perused the proposed amendment i.e. additions of paras 28A to 28H,29I, 50A to 50I. The petitioner further seek to implead Mr. P. Balachandra, Mr. A. Gupta, Mr. A. Kulkarni, Mr. S. Punj, Mr. Amod Sharma and Mr. U. Gupta, in their individual capacity as party respondent to the writ petition. She also seeks to add the Director of Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra, The State Examiner of Documents, CID Crime, Mumbai, Union Minister for Civil Aviation and Director General of Civil Aviation. 3. Office to Register the Chamber Summons. 4. In our opinion and having regard to the issues surviving in the petition and as noted in our order dated 28th April, 2010, these amendments sought to be made are not germane and the petitioner is trying to expand the scope of the petition which we will not allow. We are informed that the petitioner has already received by way of her legal dues an amount of Rs.30 lacs plus. This Chamber Summons 3 chsw269 in fact is an attempt to prolong the hearing of the writ petition. Prior to Chamber Summons No.315 of 2009, she had filed three different Chamber Summons for amendment i.e. Chamber Summons Nos.2009 of 2008, 328 of 2008 and 290 of 2009 and they were allowed. The intention of the petitioner in taking out the present Chamber Summons is writ large and some how or the other, she does not want to proceed with the final hearing of the petition. She is used to filing of frivolous Notices of Motion and Chamber Summons. 5. Hence, the Chamber Summons is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) 4 chsw269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2007 X Y Z ... ... Petitioner. Versus The National Aviation Company of India Ltd. & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Petitioner present in-person. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Mr. Dipankar Das i/by M/s. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.1,2,5 & 6. Mr.Mihir Gheewala i/by M/s. Desai & Chirag for Respondent No.4. Mr. M. S. Bhardwaj for Respondent No.7. Mr. Shailesh Shah, Special Counsel with Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP, for Respondent No.8. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: By our order dated 8th June, 2010 we had directed this petition to be listed for final hearing on 29th June, 2010 and thereafter on four occasions this petition came to be adjourned at the request of the petitioner, party in person. Today, when the petition was called out for final hearing, the petitioner presented the draft Chamber 5 chsw269 Summons for seeking amendment in the writ petition and the same has been rejected by us. 2. The petitioner has presented an application praying for further time as she proposes to challenge our order passed today rejecting the Chamber Summons. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent have orally opposed the said application for adjournment. 4. Whenever this petition is listed for final hearing, we are required to reserve a slot of at least two hours and on adjournment being granted the Counsel for the respondents are put to inconvenience and we are required to discharge the board of other matters. We have been spending sufficient time while hearing the petitioner, party in person. In our last order dated 29th July, 2010, we had made it clear that if the petitioner could not recover from ailment, she would be required to make arrangement to engage Counsel and we had also stated that we would not be inclined to consider any further request for adjournment. 5. We have reasons to believe that the Chamber Summons was presented today as another ploy to seek further adjournment for final hearing. However, since the petitioner, party in person, has sought 6 chsw269 time to challenge our order passed today, judicial propriety does not permit to turn down the request for adjournment for a reasonable period, though the application has been opposed by the Counsel for the respondents. However, we would be justified in levying wasted costs. 6. Hence, we grant adjournment for four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to challenge our order passed today before the Supreme Court, subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court by way of wasted costs within a period of two weeks from today. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)