1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1698 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 926 OF 1982 The Bombay Diocesen Trust Association & ors. ... Plaintiffs v/s Zainab Amirali Jaffer & ors. ... Defendants Mr.Arief Bookwala, Sr. Counsel with Madhu Hiraskar i/by Chitnis Vaidy & Co. for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.M.Sayeed for defendant Nos.1 to 4. Ms. Mamta Sudh with M.A.Shah i/by A.G.Shah for Defendant Nos.8, 13 to 16, 18 to 28, 31, 33, 35, 36 and 41. CORAM: R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED: 14TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: 1. By the above chamber summons the plaintiffs seek amendment of the plaint in terms of the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. So far as the amendment in terms of clause (I) is concerned, the same is not backed by any pleading as to why the defendant No.71 is now to be transposed as plaintiff No.2. The submission across the bar 2 made by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs therefore, cannot be accepted. 2. Insofar as clause (II) and the consequential amendment to the plaint in clauses (III) and (IV) are concerned, the reasons therefor are mentioned in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons. In my view, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are proper parties considering the issues that arise for consideration in the above suit. 3. The chamber summons is therefore allowed excluding clause (I) in the schedule. 4. The amendments to be carried out within a period of four weeks from date. The amended copy of the plaint to be served on the concerned defendants within two weeks thereafter. The defendants would be at liberty to file their additional written statements within eight weeks thereafter. 5. Chamber summons is accordingly disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 3