IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1638 of 2008. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1638 of 2008. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1638 of 2008. IN IN IN SUIT NO 615 of 1992. SUIT NO 615 of 1992. SUIT NO 615 of 1992. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ..Plaintiffs versus M/s. D.V.Industries & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.S.K.Chari for the plaintiffs Mr.Darshan Mehta for the respondent Nos.1 and 5 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. P.C. 1. This suit is filed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation against certain defendants out of which defendant No.2 Mr.V.J.Radia has expired and plaintiffs have taken out this Chamber Summons to brings heirs of Mr.V.J.Radia on record. Affidavit in reply is filed by Mr. Dinesh Y. Radia, who also happens to be defendant No.5 (in the cause title it is wrongly mentioned as B.V.Radia) 2. I have heard learned Counsels appearing in the matter. The defendant No.5 Mr.Dinesh has filed a detail affidavit stating therein that the partnership firm M/s. B.V.Industries, consisted of -2- certain partners and in clause 10(b) a provision is made that in the event of death of Vrajlal, his share in the partnership would go to Dinesh and vice versa. The said affidavit in reply tendered by Mr. Mehta is taken on record. Learned Counsel for defendant No.5 Mr. Mehta stated that the copy of the partnership deed annexed at Exhibit 1 to the affidavit in reply is the true copy of the Deed of Partnership to which reference is made in the affidavit in reply filed by the defendant NO.5. 3. I have perused clause 10(b) of the said Deed of Partnership and it clearly goes to show that in the event of death of Vrajlal his share in the partnership would go to Mr. Dinesh and therefore it would not be at all necessary for the present plaintiff to bring heirs of Brijlal on record through the Chamber Summons. In my view, the Chamber Summons is misconceived and the same is required to be dismissed. 4. Defendant NO.5 Mr. Dinesh V. Radia is already on record. Plaintiffs shall delete the name of defendant NO.2 from the plaint. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid I pass the following -3- Order. ORDER . Plaintiff shall delete the name of defendant No.2 from the cause title of the plaint. There is no need for the plaintiff to bring the heirs of defendant No.2 on record as the share of defendant No.2 is devolved upon by defendant No.5 in terms of clause 10(b) of the Deed of Partnership by which the defendant No.1 was constituted. . Chamber Summons is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. . Job of deletion of the name of defendant N o.2 from the cause title shall be performed by the plaintiff on or before 5.2.2009 and shall inform the existing defendants about the same (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)