IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1046 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.2110 OF 2004 Smt.Ramila Rajnikant Kilachand ...Plaintiff Versus Mr.Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand & Ors. ...Defendants ...... Ms.Shweta Jadhav i/b Dunmorr Sett for Plaintiff. Mr.Gautam Patel with Ms.Vedpathak i/b Maneksha Sethna for Defendants 1, 2, 4, 78 to 80, 83 & 85. Mr.Kalpesh Joshi i/b Malvi Ranchoddas & Co. for Defendants 23 to 29. Mr.Darshan Mehta i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for Defendants 50 to 52. Mr.Prakash Shetye for Defendants 81 & 99. Mr.Dushyant N.Desai present in-person. ....... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2005. SEPTEMBER 26, 2005. SEPTEMBER 26, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. : 2 : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and the Respondent No.3 Mr.Dushyant N.Desai wrongly described as Mr.Kishore N.Desai. The Application is for twofold reliefs. The first relief claimed is to permit the Plaintiff to bring on record heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.70 namely Respondents 1 and 2 Darshan Shantanu Desai and Nandini Shantanu Desai and for setting aside abatement and condoning delay in instituting the Chamber Summons. The second relief is to permit the Plaintiff to implead Mr.Kishore Nanubhai Desai as partner of Defendant No.75 and erstwhile partner of Defendant No.70 and related consequential amendments in terms of Schedule 2 appended to the Chamber Summons. 2. Insofar as the former relief is concerned, the delay in taking out application is only of 176 days. Explanation offered in the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons, to my mind, is good cause for condoning the same. Accordingly, Chamber summons will have to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in the interest of justice. Ordered accordingly. : 3 : 3. The Plaintiff also seeks to bring the heirs of Defendant No.70 on record, but from the assertions made in the Plaint, in particular, the description of Defendant No.70 as shown, is one of arbitrator of Kilachand family and confidante. The relief claimed is of disclosure of accounts. The fact remains that original Defendant No.70 only acted as arbitrator and no other role is ascribed to him. In such a situation, the question of bringing heirs and legal representatives of Defendant No.70 on record, does not arise. 4. To get over this position, Counsel for the Plaintiff contends that it will be necessary to bring the heirs of Defendant No.70 on record, as it is possible that they may be in possession of some of the documents, which may be relevant for establishing the claim of the Plaintiff. In that case, however, the appropriate course, would be to summon the said persons as witnesses, if so advised. The question of bringing them on record does not arise, as Defendant No.70 has been impleaded in his capacity as arbitrator and : 4 : confidante of Kilachand family. 5. Insofar as relief to implead Kishore Nanubhai Desai, partner of Defendant No.75 is concerned, it is now realised by the Plaintiff after the reply is filed by Dushyant N.Desai that he has been wrongly described as Kishore Nanubhai Desai, whereas, his real name is Dushyant Nanubhai Desai. In this view of the matter, no further relief is warranted because Dushyant N.Desai is already described as partner of Defendant No.75. 6. Mr.Dushyant Nanubhai Desai who has appeared in-person submits that the present proceedings are misdirected against him. Principally, the proceedings are to bring on record heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.70 and in no way, he can be described as heir of Defendant No.70. True it is, that Dushyant Nanubhai Desai cannot be described as heir of deceased Defendant No.70, though he is brother of Defendant No.70. In any case, as he has been already impleaded as partner of Defendant No.75 firm, which is a registered firm, no further : 5 : directions are required. 7. In the circumstances, this Application ought to fail insofar as later relief is concerned. 8. Mr.Dushyant Nanubhai Desai contends that he has been harassed on account of misdirected proceedings taken out by the Plaintiff, for which, cost should be imposed. According to the Plaintiffs, it was a bonafide mistake to refer him as Kishore N.Desai instead of Dushyant N.Desai and as that mistake has been noticed on account of reply filed by Dushyant N.Desai, the question of imposing cost does not arise. I find substance in the submission of the Plaintiff. Hence, prayer of Dushyant N.Desai to impose cost is rejected. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.