1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2351 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2941 OF 2005 Ursula Edmon Pereira & Ors. .. Plaintiffs V/s Allen Hycinth Gonsalves & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.R.M.Vasudeo for the plaintiffs. Mr.Vaibhav Sugdare i/by Mr.R.O.Pathak for the Defendants in support of the notice of motion. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 1st July, 2011. P.C.: 1. This notice of motion is taken out by Defendant Nos.2 & 3 for recalling the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by this Court in Chamber Summons No.51 of 2006 as the said order was obtained by the plaintiff by misleading this Court in view of the previous order dated 7.8.2009 passed in the said Chamber Summons. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have further prayed for dismissal of the Chamber Summons No.51 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by holding that the plaintiffs have willfully not obeyed and not complied with and have committed willful default in respect of the order dated 7.8.2009 passed in the said Chamber Summons. Further prayer is made to issue notice of 2 perjury under section 199 & 200 Indian Penal Code read with Section 195 (b) (i) (ii) (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 for willfully misleading this Court and obtaining the order dated 9.7.2010 in Chamber Summons No.51 of 2006. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.2 & 3 and learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs took out the Chamaber Summons No.51 of 2006 in Suit No.2941 of 2005 for bringing heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.2 on record . By order dated 7.8.2009 Chamber Summons was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) and the time of three weeks was granted to carry out the amendment. It appears that the plaintiffs did not carry out the amendment within the stipulated time and thereafter moved this Court by way of praciepe seeking extension of time. 3. By order dated 9.9.2009 time to carry out amendment was extended and the plaintiffs carried out amendment on 22.9.2009. Though the Chamber Summons was disposed by order dated 7.8.2009, the said Chamber Summons was again listed before this Court and by order dated 9.7.2010 the Chamber Summons was allowed and the time of four weeks to carry out the 3 amendment was granted. 4. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have taken out this notice of motion seeking the aforesaid reliefs. It is not in dispute that the Chamber Summons was initially allowed by order dated 7.8.2009. From the record of the suit, it is evident that since the plaintiffs did not carry out amendment within the time stipulated in the order dated 7.8.2009, this Court was moved and by order dated 9.9.2009 time was extended to carry out the amendment. Eventually the amendment was carried out on 22.9.2009. In these state of affairs, office ought not to have placed the chamber summons on board. However the chamber summons was again listed and by order dated 9.7.2010 once again it was allowed. 5. Having regard to these facts, I do not find any merit in the prayers made in this notice of motion. Hence, the notice of motion is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)