: 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.711 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.711 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.711 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.2741 OF 2000 SUIT NO.2741 OF 2000 SUIT NO.2741 OF 2000 Crystal Roadways .. Plaintiffs. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited .. Defendants. Mr.S.P.Kanuga for the plaintiffs. Mr.N.P.Dalvi i/b.C.R.Naidu & Co. for defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 4th September, 2008. DATE : 4th September, 2008. DATE : 4th September, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. On 9.10.2002, in Motion No.381 of 2001 and 566 of 2001, plaintiffs were permitted to sale the 10 vehicles which are reflected in the order dated 29.10.2002 and deposit with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the sale proceeds after arriving at the figure as set out, in order to deal with the order dated 29.10.2002. 2. This chamber summons is taken out by the defendants in order to know as to what has happened after the said order dated 29.10.2002 was passed and to what extent plaintiffs have complied with the said order. : 2 : 3. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. 4. Mr.Kanuga, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs states that the the order dated 29.10.2002 was to be effected and the present chamber summons is taken out in the year 2008 and that his clients are collecting necessary information and that is how, the plaintiffs are attending to the matter. 5. After having considered the scope of the present chamber summons, it is clear that the defendants wanted to know as to what has happened after order dated 29.10.2002 and that is how, three points are raised by the defendants in the nature of a query. 6. In the course of arguments, it was reflected that the sale of the 10 vehicles by order dated 29.10.2002 has no direct bearing on the points in order to dispute and at the most the sale proceeds could be looked into at the time of filing of the suit. In my view, instead of keeping the chamber summons pending, plaintiffs could be directed to supply to defendants whatever information they have in regard to the three items on or before 15.10.2008. Hence the following order :- : 3 : O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) The plaintiffs are directed to furnish to the defendants whatever information they have with reference to three points raised in the prayer clause (a). ii) This be done on or before 15.10.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. iii) It is clarified that this direction is given to the plaintiffs to supply the necessary information and nothing beyond that. If for some reason, plaintiffs cannot convey to the defendants the information set out in prayer clause (a), the plaintiffs shall write a suitable letter to the defendants informing them that they are unable to furnish information set out in prayer clause (a). 7. Chamber summons is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Suit No.2741 of 2000 to remove from Board. : 4 : (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)