1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.95 of 2009 in T.S.No.91 of 2008 (Testamentary Petition No. 98 of 1993) 1 Mrs.Vijaya Arun Karambelkar and another ..Petitioners vs. Mrs.Mangal Suresh Thakur ..Respondent Mr.Dipen Furia i/b Niranjan and Co. in support of the chamber summons Mr.M.W.Padgaonkar i/b Mr.Shailesh Kumar for plaintiff. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J. 25th November, 2009 P.C. 1 Perused the chamber summons, affidavit in support and affidavit in reply. 2 The Chamber Summons seeks condonation of delay in filing the additional affidavit in support of the caveat. Caveat is by the caveator/defendant. It is true that the said caveat was pending in this Court for considerable time without compliance but it 2 is common ground that thereafter the original petitioner expired and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record by an order dated 30th November, 2007. Therefore, the objection raised for condonation of delay on the ground that caveator/defendant took no steps and was negligent cannot be accepted. Further, the conduct of the caveator/defendant is also something which need not be gone into in further details in these proceedings. Since I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay and even the caveat of the caveator/defendant is now retained on file, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). However, the applicant to pay costs quantified at Rs. 1500/- for the delay. Costs condition precedent to be paid to the petitioners or their Advocate within a period of two weeks from today. However, this order will not 3 preclude the original petitioner from raising appropriate pleas in accordance with law and all such pleas of the plaintiffs/petitioners are kept open. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)