- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1087 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Vardhaman Trading Corporation & others. ...Defendants. ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1563 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1087 OF 1988 (MENTIONED, NOT ON BOARD MENTIONED, NOT ON BOARD MENTIONED, NOT ON BOARD) Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Vardhaman Trading Corporation & others. ...Defendants. and 1.Mr.Jaswant Shantilal Mutha & another. ...Proposed Defendants AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1089 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Vardhaman Trading Corporation & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1091 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs - 2 - vs. 1.M/s.Vardhaman Trading Corporation & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1092 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Vardhaman Trading Corporation & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1094 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.M/s.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1107 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1108 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1109 OF 1988 - 3 - Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1110 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1111 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1112 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. AND SUMMARY SUIT NO.1113 OF 1988 Canara Bank ...Plaintiffs vs. 1.Sidhi Syntex & others. ...Defendants. --- Ms.Prachi Mhatre i/b. M/s.Bodhanwalla & Co., for Plaintiff. - 4 - Ms.Rama R.Sharma i/b. K.S.Jain, for Defendant no.5 in Suit nos.1067/88, 1089/88, 1091/88 & 1092/88, and for Defendant nos.1 to 3 in Suit nos.1094/88, 1107/88, 1108/88, 1109/1988, 1110/88, 1111/88, 1112/88, 1113/88. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED: 21st MARCH,2009. DATED: 21st MARCH,2009. DATED: 21st MARCH,2009. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Chamber summons no.1563 of 2008 in Summary suit no.1087 of 1988 is moved for amendment, it is duly served. None appears on behalf of the defendants to oppose the request for amendment. None appears on behalf of the proposed defendants also. The amendment is necessitated because the original defendant no.2 has expired after filing of the suit. His heirs are brought on record. The chamber summons is duly served but there is no denial of the statements made in the affidavit. 2. In these circumstances, chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. It is stated that in other suits also similar - 5 - request for amendment was made which has been allowed, amendments have been carried out, but the amended copies have yet to be served on the other side. 4. These are the suits by Canara Bank in which none is appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank except the Advocate, whenever the matters are called out. It appears that the plaintiff-Bank does not seem to be interested in giving prompt instructions and proceeding with the suit. There are public funds involved and these are about 13 suits which are pending on the file of this Court from the year 1988. 5. At the request of the plaintiffs’ Advocate, stand over for two weeks as last chance. If the plaintiffs do not respond within this period, the Court will be constrained to dismiss the suits for want of prosecution. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)