1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1941 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2763 OF 1991 Sayyed Mehmood Husain ...Plaintiff Vs. Jooman Raju ...Defendant And 1(a) Karam Hussain & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Shanti Naidu i/b. M/s. Gole & Co., for Plaintiff CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 25 TH MARCH , 2009 P.C. 1. The Chamber Summons is taken out to bring the heirs of the deceased Defendant on record. The Plaintiff's present Advocate has come on record on 10 th July, 2008 in place and stead of the earlier Advocate. On 17 th March 2009 the Plaintiff's Advocate was directed to give notice to the Respondents who are heirs of the deceased Defendant. She claims to have given notice. Copy of the notice is not produced. She has produced one acknowledgment of the Respondent No.1. It is shown to be signed on 22nd December 2007. She has not shown the notice served upon Respondent No.1 which was directed to be given on the last 2 date of hearing. The service upon the Defendants as well as Respondents is not seen to be effected as directed on 17 th March 2009. The Plaintiff's Advocate has tried to pass off an acknowledgment of Respondent No1, which does not show the notice directed to be given. The acknowledgment is made in December 2007. It shows that Respondent No.1 was served in December 2007 by the earlier Advocate whose name appears as sender on the registered acknowledgment. 2. The other Respondents are not shown to be served either by the earlier Advocate or by the present Advocate. The Plaintiff's Advocate who now appears for the Plaintiff has not carried out the directions of the Court passed on 17th March 2009. She has not served the Chamber Summons though she represents the Plaintiff since July 2008. 3. The acknowledgment without any letter or affidavit tendered by the Plaintiff's Advocate showing receipt by Respondent No.1 on 22 nd December 2007 is taken on record. 4. The Chamber Summons is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)