1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINA CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 331 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3761 OF 1999 Silloo Bomi Peer & Ors. ......Plaintiffs V. Rusi Shavksha Peer & Anr. ......Defendants And Ms Hutoxi Sam Peer ......Respondent Mrs Shushma Singh i/b M/s Jehangir Gulabbhai & Billimaria for the plaintiffs Mr. E.P. Presswala i/b M/s Mulla & Mulla for the defendant No.1 CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009. P.C. 1 The above Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiffs to bring the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 on record. There is a delay of 6 years and 2 months in taking out the Chamber Summons. The plaintiffs have also prayed for condonation of delay and to set aside the abatement. The reasons for delay are as stated in para 2 of the affidavit-in-reply. 2 2 The learned Counsel for the defendant No.1 has opposed the Chamber Summons. He has pointed out Order 22 Rule 2 of CPC and submitted that this was not a case where the plaintiffs were not aware of the death of the deceased and in view of the provisions of order 22 Rule 4 of CPC the Chamber Summons ought not to be allowed. The learned Counsel also relied upon the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai V.s State of Kerla and another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 322. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand placed reliance upon the following cases: (1) Collector Land Acquisition V. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in U.J. (SC) 1987 (2), 29 (2) N.Balkrishnan V/s M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 S.C.C. 123 (3) Rafiq and Another V. Munshilal and another, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788 (4) Lachiram Chudiwala V. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd, reported in 2006 (6) Bom. C.R. 559 in support of her contention that a justice- oriented approach is required by the Court. 4 Having considered the rival contention of the parties, though the reason stated for the delay are not entirely satisfactory, and since the Chamber Summons is only to bring the Legal heirs on record, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow the Chamber Summons. The Defendant No. 1 can be compensated by awarding appropriate costs. It is to be noted that the defendant No.1, who is one of the heirs of the defendant No.2, is already on record and it is not a case where the entire suit has abated. 5. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in 3 terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c), subject to costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant No.1. Costs to be paid within a period of 3 weeks from today. 6 Chamber Summons to stand disposed of. A.A. SAYED J.