IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1615 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.6 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT LODGING NO.2744 OF 2005 Bagtudevi w/o. Loorkaran Maloo .. Plaintiff v/s. Parasmal G. Sethia .. Defendant Mr. Mukesh Pabari for the plaintiff. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 15TH JUNE, 2007 P.C. In so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, that has already been granted in terms of the order dated 18th December, 2006. The plaintiff is granted further time to carry out amendment in terms of that order within a period of one week from today. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff had filed the present chamber summons in person and was ill-advised to make that prayer. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has been allowed to amend the plaint, the plaintiff will not pursue prayer clause (b) of the motion. In other words, the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the chamber summons is not pressed. In view of the above, nothing survives in this chamber summons. Same is dismissed with the above terms. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)