1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.475 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 640 OF 1968 Rati Doss Bharucha & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Naju M. Kavarana & Ors. ...Defendants. Mr. P.A. Sawant with Mrs. J.N. Mamniya for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Dara Zaiwala, Sr. Counsel i/by Mr. Khushrushal for Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Uday Bobade for Defendant Nos. 5 to 8. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 8TH JULY, 2009. P.C.- 1. The Original Plaintiff No.1 has taken out this Chamber Summons to amend the plaint. The suit is for administration of the estate of Bai Navajbai Bharucha. The evidence is already recorded. The matter is closed for arguments. 2. After the death of Original Plaintiff No.2 Mrs. Zarine Hoshang Shroff was brought on record as Plaintiff No.2A. She also expired on 8th November, 2007. Therefore, Defendant No.5,6, 7 and 8 were brought on record as Plaintiff Nos. 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D by order Dated 22nd January, 2009. Those Plaintiffs 2A to 2D have been transposed as Defendant No. 2 5,6,7 and 8. The Applicant, therefore, preferred this Chamber Summons for the amendment and basically to bring on record 3 documents dated 22nd February, 1983, 30th April, 1997 and 6th May, 2008 and thereby also averred that Defendant Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 do not have any right, title or interest in the said estate and claiming that Mrs. Rati Doss Bharucha alone is entitled to 1/5th share in the Bharucha Building. 3. It appears from this that there is a dispute between the Legal Heirs of Maneckshaw for 1/5th share in respect of the estate in question. Original Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 now expired. Their legal heirs - Plaintiff No.1A, Plaintiff No.2A and Defendant Nos. 5,6, 7 and 8 being Zarine’s heirs are as brought on record. In view of those documents, Plaintiff Nos. 1A claiming that they have waived/ released their rights in favour of Plaintiff No.1A. Therefore, she has exclusive right upon the 1/5th Share. Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.5, are not accepting this and therefore, there is a dispute with regard to the exclusive share as claimed by Plaintiff No. 1A, through this Chamber Summons. 4. In the suit for administration of the estate, such inter-se dispute between the heirs, and specially at this stage of the suit cannot be entertained. There are no sufficient reasons or due diligence shown and or brought on record to support this Chamber summons to bring these documents of the 1983, 1997 and 2008 now, on the record. The Applicant – Plaintiff No.1-A has full knowledge of this document. There is nothing 3 brought on record that why these documents could not be produced at the appropriate stage. The submission that this Chamber Summons was taken out after transposition as referred above, is also unacceptable. The rights so created, even if any, based upon these documents ought to have been placed at the earliest possible time. Therefore, in view of Order 6, Rule 17, proviso and Order 8, Rule 1-A, the amendment so sought with documents, in the present facts and circumstances cannot be allowed. (Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Ors.,(2009)2 S.C.C. 409.) 5. Even otherwise, the inter-se dispute between the Legal Heirs should not halt the main proceedings of the suit of the year 1968 which is at the stage of final hearing. Whatever the rights of the Applicant – Plaintiff-1-A, even if any, that need to be agitated in appropriate proceedings to settle their inter-se dispute or her rights. Therefore, the documents, as well as, the averments so made in no way necessary to adjudicate or to decide the issues of the present suit. On the contrary, it will frustrate and delay the proceedings of this suit which is pending since 1968. 6. Resultantly, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)