1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.164 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1664 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2038 OF 1985 R.M.Vyas .... Appellant V/s. Jasbir Singh Vasan & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.B.Bagla i/by M/s.Bagla Dandekar & Co., for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant who is the original defendant of Suit No.2038 of 1985, has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-11-2008, by which the learned Single Judge permitted the plaintiff to bring heirs of deceased defendant No.2 on record. The Chamber summons was accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), by permitting heirs of defendant No.2 to be brought on record. This order of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the suit was dismissed for default, and unless the suit is restored to the file, such prayer could not have been granted. The learned counsel for the 2 appellant fairly submitted that the suit is now restored to the file. Since the suit is restored to the file, the order passed by the learned Single Judge can be said to be effective from the date of the restoration of the suit. This Court would not like to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which heirs of defendant No.2 are permitted to be brought on record. The defendants should contest the suit on merits. We would not like to delay the proceedings at a stage where the heirs of defendant NO.2 are permitted to be brought on record. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of restoring the suit has been challenged by the appellant. Even if the said order is challenged by the appellant, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is required to be noted that there are other defendants also and therefore, the suit cannot be said to be abated in its entirety. The learned Single Judge permitted to bring heirs of defendant No.2 on record and we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as in our view, the appellant is interested only in delaying the proceedings and the suit of 1985 is still pending in view of the proceedings taken out by the appellant one after another. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.C.CHAVAN, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)