: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1628 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.114 OF 1980 Mrs.Sushilabai N. Rungta ....Plaintiff V/s. Radheshyam C. Goenka & Ors. ....Defendants Ms.R. Iyer, Senior Counsel with Mr.J.S.Chandnani for the Plaintiff. Mr.S.N. Shah with Mr.R.Goenka and Mr.P. Das for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 27TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. : 1. This is the fifth Defendant’s Chamber Summons for having his name struck out as a Defendant in the above suit. 2. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No.5 in support of the Chamber Summons submitted that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against Defendant No.5 inter-alia as Defendant No.5 is not a party to the document of which specific performance is sought and that no reliefs have been sought against Defendant NO.5. : 2 : 3. Ms.Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs on the other hand submitted that Defendant No.5 is a necessary and proper party in view of the long drawn history of these litigations. 4. She submitted that in the event of Defendant No.5 being dropped even in these circumstances technical defences could be raised against the Plaintiffs. This she submitted would be so despite Mr.Shah’s statements which I will now refer to. 5. Mr.Shah submitted that Defendant No.5 has no interest whatever in the subject matter of the suit or of the agreement of which specific performance is sought. He states that Defendant No.5 is willing to abide by the orders of the Court. He further submits that the other Defendants would file affidavits stating that in the event of Defendant No.5 being dropped from the proceedings, they would not raise any defences on the basis thereof including on the grounds of mis-joinder or non-joinder of a necessary or property party. 6. I am satisfied that Defendant No.5 himself is not taking an unreasonable, dishonest or contentious : 3 : stand. In effect the several litigations in these proceedings indicate that he is not of a litigious nature therein. 7. Despite the same, I do not intend granting reliefs on the limited ground that technical defences may be taken by the other Defendants if Defendant No.5 is allowed to be dropped including that the concession, if made, are not binding on them at a later stage. Even assuming that such contentions have no basis in law, I see no reason to expose the Plaintiffs to further litigation on these issues especially when the suit has been pending now for over thirty years. 8. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is dismissed but subject to the above observations.