: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1335 OF 2007 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.847 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.5172 OF 2000 Umesh J. Patel & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Harishankar R. Mhatre & Ors. ....Defendants And Sandeep M. Hanumane & Ors. ....Applicants Mr.Shailesh Shah with Mr.H.V. Mode for the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.4 present in person. Mr.H. Toor with Mr.S.K. Dhari and Mr.R. Nirmal i/b S.K. Legal Associates for Defendant No.10. Mr.B.P. Pandey for the Applicant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants who are not the parties to the suit for leave to continue with the proceedings initiated by them before the Talathi/Tahsildar, Borivli regarding the change in the mutation entry in respect of the suit property under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 2. The Court Receiver was appointed in the above suit on 1.10.2002. The application before the Revenue : 2 : Authorities commenced on 2.8.2006 i.e. while the Court Receiver was still in possession of the property. This fact was known to the parties. In any event the fact that the appointment of the Court Receiver was in operation on 2.8.2006 is not denied. By an order dated 28.4.2007, the application was allowed. The Plaintiffs challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition being Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1182 of 2007 on 17.7.2007. By an order dated 17.7.2007 the learned single Judge recorded the statement on behalf of the Applicants that they would take out an appropriate application in this suit seeking leave to continue the proceedings. Accordingly the present Chamber Summons was filed. 3. The Plaintiffs had filed an Appeal against the said order dated 17.7.2007. I am informed that the same was withdrawn. A copy of the said order has not been furnished. 4. The Plaintiffs had also filed an Appeal against the order dated 28.4.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar. The S.D.O. by an order dated 28.1.2008 allowed the Appeal. 5. As stated at the out-set in the present case the Applicants have sought leave to "continue with the : 3 : proceedings" before the Talathi. However, those proceedings have as noted above, concluded by virtue of the order dated 28.4.2007. As held in Everest Coal Company Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1977 S.C. 2304 :- "If, before the suit terminates, the relevant court is moved and permission to sue or to prosecute further is granted, the requirement of law is fulfilled. Of course failure to secure such leave till the end of the lis may prove fatal". 6. In the circumstances, Notice of Motion No.1335 of 2007 is dismissed. It is however, clarified that this order will not preclude the Applicants from taking out any proceedings including a fresh Chamber Summons for the purpose of instituting the similar proceedings. 7. This brings me to Chamber Summons No.847 of 2008 by which the Applicants have sought leave to file a suit against the above parties in respect of the suit land. . The grant of such permission is the rule and the refusal thereof is an exception as held in the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 8. Various contentions were raised on merits by : 4 : the parties to the suit. They contended that the agreement on which the Applicant relies is bogus, fabricated and null and void. It was contended that the agreement is allegedly dated 26.11.1975. However, clause 13 thereof refers to the Urban Land Ceiling Act which came into force only in the year 1976. It was submitted however that the agreement was entered into in anticipation of such an Act coming into force. 9. I do not for a moment suggests that the contentions raised on merits are not without force. However, these are contentions on merits which must be decided in the suit. 10. I have permitted all those parties who have not filed affidavits in reply to proceed on the basis of denials and have rejected their application for time to file an affidavit in reply. Needless to add that all the allegations and contentions contained in the above Chamber Summons and the affidavit in support thereof therefore are not admitted by any of the parties. 11. In the circumstances, Chamber Summons No.847 of 2008 is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).