1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.23 of 2010 In Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 In Suit No.206 of 2004 With Appeal No.24 of 2010 In Notice of Motion No.239 of 2006 In Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 In Suit No.206 of 2004 Ketan Jayantilal Shah & anr. Appellants Vs. Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah & ors. Respondents Mr.Tushar Goradia for appellants. Mr.Paritosh Jaiswal i/b. Kanga & Co. for resp.nos.3 to 13. Mr.Chirag Shah i/b. Niranjan & Co. for resp.nos.14 and 15. 2 CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 18, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. Admit. Respondent Nos.3 to 15 waive service. Respondent nos.1 and 2 had not appeared before the learned trial Judge in Suit No.206 of 2004 despite service. 2. By consent of the parties the Appeals have been finally heard. Paper-book dispensed with. Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 was taken out by the plaintiff in Suit No.206 of 2004 for two reliefs viz. to bring on record the LRs of the deceased defendants and also to bring on record some additional defendants who were not joined in the plaint originally. On 12/7/2005 conditional order was passed in Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 along with other Chamber Summons and the plaintiffs were required to comply with the said order by 31st August 2005. It appears that the said order was not noticed by the learned Advocate till 30th August 2005 and, therefore, Notice of Motion No.239 of 2006 came to be taken out for restoration of Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005. The said Notice of 3 Motion was listed before the learned trial Judge and again on 31/1/2006 and it was dismissed for non-compliance. It was noted that the explanation furnished by the learned Advocate for the applicant - plaintiff was not found to be satisfactory. 3. We have noted that the order dated 12/7/2005 was in a group of Chamber Summons and it was praying for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased defendants. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 13 has in his oral arguments opposed these Appeals and submitted that no sufficient reasons were furnished for restoration of Chamber Summons No. 710 of 2005. 4. The fact remains that some of the other LRs of the very same deceased defendant are already on record and the suit filed is for partition of the family properties consisting of originally three brothers i.e. Gulabchand, Kasturchand and Dhanraj Shah and their father Khimchand Bhaichand Shah. At the same time it was necessary for the plaintiff to take out separate Chamber Summons for joinder of additional defendants in the plaint who, it was stated, could not be impleaded due to inadvertence while the suit was filed. Technicalities apart, it would be necessary that all the 4 branches of the joint family are represented before the trial Court when Suit No.206 of 2004 is decided on merits and ex parte decree for partition is not passed against any of the LRs. It would be, therefore, appropriate to comply with the procedural requirements, Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 is restored and liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to take out a separate Chamber Summons for joinder of additional defendants in Suit No.206 of 2004. 5. We, therefore, allow these Appeals and set aside the orders dated 12/7/2005 and 31/1/2006. Chamber Summons No.710 of 2005 is restored to the file and it will be pressed for the relief only to the extent of bringing on record the LRs of the deceased defendants. The plaintiffs are at liberty to take out a separate Chamber Summons for joinder of additional defendants. 6. No order as to costs. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)