:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 685 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 685 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 685 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 749 OF 1981 NO. 749 OF 1981 NO. 749 OF 1981 Chandru Lachmandas Rajeha. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Nancy Francis Rego & Co. ... Defendant. Mr. F.E. D’vetre, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. B.B. Saraf i/b. Humranwala & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. K. More i/b. Mr. D.G. Rangras for Defendant 2. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 10TH 10TH 10TH NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is a Chamber Summons to join Respondents 1 and 2 as party Defendants to the Suit. 2. Mr. D’vetre tenders further draft amendment. He submits that if this further draft is taken on record and considered at this stage itself, that would be in the interest of justice. It would obviate taking out another application for amendment. 3. In the peculiar facts of this case, the draft amendment is taken on record. This draft amendment be read as substitution for paragraphs 8(a)(iv) of the Schedule to the Chamber Summons. It is in this light that the draft amendment is taken on record. :2: 4. Perused the Chamber Summons and the affidavits filed in reply. 5. It is not disputed that the suit property is conveyed purportedly by Defendants 1 to 4 to Respondents 1 and 2. However, all that is being urged is that the so called alienation has taken place much prior and the Chamber Summons is therefore hopelessly delayed. In other words, the Chamber Summons should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches is the submission of the Respondents. 6. Having perused the Chamber Summons and the affidavit filed and it being undisputed that the property has changed hands, it would not be fair to deprive the Plaintiffs of their chance to proceed with the suit by impleading the Respondents 1 and 2. It is well settled that liberal principles have to be applied while considering such application. If the Plaintiffs deserve an opportunity to proceed with their claim on merits that should not be denied to them except for good reasons. To-day, all that is urged by Respondents 1 and 2 is that the property has further changed hands and now about 105 persons are the purchasers of the property from Respondents 1 and 2. These are not matters for which the Chamber Summons praying for amendment of the present nature can be dismissed. :3: 7. If the Plaintiffs are required to implead further parties, it is for them to do so. However, merely because the property has further changed hands during the pendency of the litigation does not mean that the present Chamber Summons should be dismissed. 8. For these reasons, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)