1 45 s 212.1997.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION srk SUIT NO. 212 OF 1997 Abhishek Agrawalla ..Plaintiff. vs. Mulchand D. Kripalani & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Paras Kale for the plaintiff. (Vakalatnama not filed) Mr. Mahesh Patil i/b Ranjit & Co. for the defendant no.1. Mr. Parineet S. i/b S.S.P. Legal for the defendant no.2. Mrs. U.K. Shah i/b Mr. K.D. Shah for the defendant no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays for an adjournment. Request is opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants. Adjournment is refused. 3. The defendant no.1 has died on 15th September, 2000. By an order dated 16th November, 2009, the suit against the defendant no.1 stood abated. 2 45 s 212.1997.doc 4. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that in view of the abatement of the suit against the defendant no.1, the entire suit stands abated as the cause of action against other defendants is inseparable from the cause of action against the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 had issued certain bonds, which stood in the name of defendant no.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the defendant no.1 is not the rightful owner but the plaintiff is the rightful owner and had prayed for consequential reliefs including a direction to the defendant no.2 to pay the money of the bond to the plaintiff instead of paying it to the defendant no.1. On abatement of the suit against the defendant no.1, no relief can be granted in respect of the bonds which stood in his name. Consequently, no reliefs can be granted against the second defendant and the entire suit would stand abated. 4. Suit is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. [ D.G. KARNIK, J. ]