1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.952 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.418 OF 1997 Anil Sonaba Jagdale .. Plaintiff Versus Rashmikumar J. Bhatia & Ors. .. Defendants and M/s.Aakar Enterprises & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.K.Jain for plaintiff Mr.Vishal Kanade with R.A.Shah i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for defendant No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1st October 2008 P.C. . This chamber summons is for amendment to the plaint and more particularly impleading respondents as defendants to the suit. The defendants, including proposed ones are served. 2. In the affidavit in support it is pointed out that the suit is filed for declaration that 2 the auction held on 29th April 1986 by defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void. 3. It has been pointed out in the affidavit in support that the suit property was in possession of a third party. Correspondence ensued with the Advocates for defendant No.3 and thereafter, details with regard to third parties who are in possession of the property have been forwarded, which necessitated moving of present chamber summons. 4. There are no denials of the averments contained in the affidavit in support. Except defendant No.3 none is appearing despite being served. Even the respondents are absent. 5. In the light of the fact that the averments and statements in the affidavit in support are not controverted and reliance is placed upon the correspondence with the Advocate 3 for defendant No.3, this is a fit case to allow the chamber summons. Accordingly, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Amendments to be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state that merely because there is no affidavit in reply to this chamber summons does not mean that the allegations against the court receiver or defendant No.3 are admitted. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)