1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1853 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 6729 OF 1999 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay .. Plaintiff. Vs. Khanna & Co. Steel Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendant. ---- Mr. Makhija a/w Parag Khandar i/b Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C., for the Plaintiff. Ms. P.K. Bulchandani i/b M/s Kamal & Co. for Defendant nos.1 and 2. Mr. Kamal Prakash Paranjpe i/b Bhatt & Saldanha, for Defendant No.3. ---- CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the third defendant the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. to be deleted from the suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2). 2. This is the usual B.P.T. suit for recovery of demurrage. No reliefs have been claimed against the third defendant. There is no cause of action pleaded against the defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 is impleaded as a proper party. This is on the basis that the IGM was amended by defendant no.3 increasing the quantity of cargo imported by defendant nos.1 and 2 on its vessel. However, this by itself would not justify impleading defendant no.3. 2 If the plaintiff wishes to establish the amendment to the IGM it can always summon defendant no.3 or its record. 3. On behalf of defendant nos.1 and 2 the Chamber Summons was opposed on the ground that deleting defendant no.3 would prejudice them. According to defendant nos.1 and 2 they incurred additional demurrage on account of the third defendant’s negligence. Defendant nos.1 and 2 would not be prejudiced by deleting the third defendant from this suit. As stated above, no reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiff against defendant no.3. What is important is the fact that defendant nos.1 and 2 have not adopted any proceedings in this suit in respect of the alleged negligence of defendant no.3. Defendant nos.1 and 2 were always and are even now at liberty to adopt proceedings against defendant no.3 in accordance with law for recovering any damages they may have suffered on account of the alleged negligence of defendant no.3. That is no justification for defendant nos.1 and 2 contending that the suit should continue also against defendant no.3. 4. In the circumstances the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). There shall, however, no order as to costs. 5. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. 3