1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.536 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.282 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2208 OF 1987 Janki Bhojraj Makhija & Ors. .. Plaintiffs versus Lachhmandas Bhojraj Makhija & Ors. .. Defendants And Mrs.Manisha Arjan Makhija .. Respondent Mr.Rakesh Dave i/by N.N.Vaishnawa & Co for plaintiff No.1. Mr.H.K.Vazirani for defendant Nos.1 and 2A. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 14th June 2010. P.C.: . This is a chamber summons taken out by the applicant in an Execution Application. He holds a decree for partition. It appears that pending the suit the plaintiff No.3, defendant Nos.6 and 7 expired without leaving any heirs. Their names were not deleted prior to the passing of the partition decree. The partition decree is under appeal. The prayer (a) made in the chamber summons is that their names be deleted from the Execution Application. As far as prayer (b) is concerned, it is for bringing 2 the names of the heirs of defendant No.3 on record. To prayer (b) the plaintiff has no objection. In so far as prayer (a) is concerned, his contention is that one of the ground raised by him in the appeal is that the decree is bad in law because the names of certain parties who had expired prior to the decree had not been deleted. In my view, even assuming their names were not brought on record that can at highest be a ground for adjustment of the shares of the parties which can be done by the Appeal Court itself. It cannot be a ground for dismissing the partition suit filed by the plaintiff. It is not disputed that plaintiff No.3, defendant Nos.6 and 7 have expired. In my view, therefore, the chamber summons can be granted and the grant of the same will not prejudice the original defendants who have filed the appeal. The chamber summons is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within three weeks. The chamber summons is disposed of. (R.S.MOHITE, J)