1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.555 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.2612 OF 1998 Navratan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. .. Plaintiffs versus M/s.ACME Estate & Ors. .. Defendants and Bombay Port Trust & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.F.Sharma for the plaintiffs. Mr.A.S.Chandurwala i/by Desai & Diwanji for defendant No.1. Mr.B.G.Vaidya for defendant No.3. Mr.P.Khandar i/by Mulla & Mulla for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st December 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in support of the chamber summons. The prayer in the chamber summons taken out by the plaintiffs is for recalling the order dated 12th April 2005 passed by this Court in earlier Chamber Summons No.1054 of 2004 taken out by the plaintiffs. The prayer made in the earlier chamber summons was for impleading the 1st and 2nd respondents herein as party defendant Nos.5 and 6 to the suit. On 12th April 2005, the said earlier chamber summons was made absolute. 2. In the affidavit in support of the present chamber summons, it is pointed out that when the earlier chamber summons came up before the Court, the counsel for the plaintiffs was under impression that notice of the 2 chamber summons was served to the 2nd respondents. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support it is stated that on 16th September 2005 a precipae was moved before this Court pointing out that in fact the concerned respondent was not served. As notice was not served to the concerned respondent, the plaintiffs have come forward to file the present chamber summons for recalling the order passed on the earlier chamber summons. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs invited my attention to the averments made in the affidavit in support and pointed out that within few days of the passing of the order on the earlier chamber summons, the plaintiffs had moved the same learned Judge and pointed out the error. He submitted that the present chamber summons be made absolute and the earlier chamber summons be heard afresh. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant opposed the chamber summons by pointing out that when earlier chamber summons was heard, a totally incorrect statement was made before this Court on 12th April 2005 that the 2nd respondent was served with the notice. He submitted that after having made a totally incorrect statement, no indulgence should be shown to the plaintiffs. He submitted that the plaintiffs be saddled with costs. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. The earlier chamber summons was made absolute on 12th September 2005. The affidavit in support discloses that on 16th September 2005 advocate on record for the plaintiffs filed a precipae and moved this Court. 3 The present chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs by pointing out that the 2nd respondents were not served with the notice of the earlier chamber summons. If there was any intention on the part of the plaintiffs of making a deliberate false statement regarding service, the present chamber summons would not have been taken out by the plaintiffs. 6. In the circumstances, the chamber summons deserves to be made absolute. Accordingly, chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. The restored Chamber Summons No.1054 of 2004 shall be placed for hearing on 12th January 2010. 8. The plaintiffs will serve notice of the chamber summons to all concerned parties and will file affidavit of service on or before 8th January 2010. (A.S.OKA,J)