1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.9 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.34 OF 2004 IN PETITION NO.663 OF 2000 Atul Tukaram Hule .. Plaintiff Versus Mrs.Sulekha Satish Chavan .. Defendant Ms.K.C.Nichani i/b. Ms.A.R.Kamath for plaintiff mr.A.B.Shrikhande for petitioner in MPT 16/08 Mrs.S.Chavan - Caveatrix in person. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th December 2008 P.C. . By this chamber summons, the plaintiff is praying that the plaint be allowed to be amended so as to include the details in the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. In the affidavit in support it is stated that the deceased expired on or about 2nd March 2000 leaving behind a writing termed as his last will and testament 2 dated 9th May 1996. The plaintiff claims to be an executor under the will and has, therefore, applied for grant of probate of the will. Upon citation being served, the defendant caveatrix entered caveat affidavit and that is how proceedings are converted into contested matters. It is stated that after the death of the deceased, caveatrix and her family members took charge of the estate of the deceased and at that time the plaintiff executor was not informed. Later on, when the will was read out in the presence of all concerned, at that time also no details were furnished. After the caveat was filed, the plaintiff became aware that certain documents are in possession of the defendant. Therefore, she was called upon to give inspection of the original documents. After that a letter dated 16th December 2007 along with photocopies was received and that is how the further assets and properties have been disclosed. 3 2. This chamber summons is opposed by the Caveatrix who is appearing in person and she has contended that the original documents pertaining to the investments mentioned in the affidavit in support of the caveat were collected from the executor and the plaintiff has full knowledge of these assets and it is false to allege that they were taken charge of without informing the plaintiff. It is stated that the caveat is filed in 2004 and in affidavit in support thereof, all assets have been duly reflected. She has asserted that nothing was held back by her or not disclosed. There are certain allegations made against the plaintiff executor but presently I am not concerned with them. Her principal objection is that there is a delay in moving this chamber summons. She has also disclosed that the valuation of the shares has been taken by the plaintiff executor as that of the year 2004. She has pointed out the present market rate and, therefore, the plaintiff must take that rate into 4 account. 3. After this chamber summons was heard for some time and the affidavit in support and reply have been perused by me, I am of the opinion that if the details as are sought to be incorporated are allowed to be incorporated, the same would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and would enable the Court to effectively and completely resolve the controversy. Ultimately, the full estate must be disclosed so that the Court can decide the dispute in a proper manner. At this stage, there is no opinion expressed as far as merits of the controversy. It is not necessary to do so and all pleas in that behalf are kept open. Similarly, the pleas with regard to the plaintiff executor failing to act prudently or not acting in the interest of the beneficiary for protecting the estate are concerned, they are made subject matter of a separate proceeding and even as far as this aspect is concerned, no 5 opinion is expressed. All pleas of both sides are kept open. 4. Merely because there is a delay, the chamber summons cannot be dismissed. The delay is not such as would demonstrate complete lack of bonafides or inaction on the part of the plaintiff. The delay has been explained and I do not find that the explanation is such as if it deserves to be rejected. 5. In the light of the above, this chamber summons is allowed and is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today. Needless to state that caveatrix has handed over a list of original documents. The original share certificates and the F.D. receipts and other investments are taken on record. The list along with originals shall be kept in appropriate and safe custody and subject 6 to further orders of the Court in these proceedings. 6. Needless to state that this order shall not affect the outcome of the Miscellaneous Petition No.16 of 2008. It is directed that issues would be framed in the suit after the amendments are carried out. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)