1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.828 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2653 OF 2006 Mohan Thakur & anr. .... Plaintiffs vs Hiralakshmi Pranlal Shah & anr. ... Defendants Mr.Sandeep Raut i/b. Ranjit & Co. for the plaintiffs. Mr.Phiroz Colabawala i/b. RAK Najam for defendant no.1. Ms.B. Lobo i/b. Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C. For defendant no.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 24th July, 2009 P.C.: 1 The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs basically raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of chamber summons for setting aside the impugned order and condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 2 Though there is a substance in the contention so raised, but to avoid further delay and in the interest of justice, I am considering the chamber summons only, for the reason that defendant no.1 is 82 years old. The suit is for specific performance basically against defendant no.1. 3 Therefore, even otherwise, it is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue that defendant no.1 should participate in the proceedings. 2 4 Considering the averments made in paragraphs 2 to 5, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of defendant no.1 to give full opportunity to both the parties to contest the matter. 5 In the result, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). However, this is subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid within two weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)