IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1081 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1677 OF 2006 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1897 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1677 OF 2006 Shivraj Builders & Developers ..Plaintiffs Vs. Sandeep Satish Trasikar & Ors. ..Defendants None for the Plaintiffs Ms Gunjan Shah i/b Mr. Arvind Rathod & Co. for Defendant Nos.1 & 3 Mr. Bharat Zaveri for Defendant No.5 CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2010 P.C. 1. This chamber summons was taken out by the plaintiffs with prayer to incorporate the amendment as proposed in the schedule to the chamber summons. The chamber summons was taken out on behalf of the plaintiffs in August 2006. It was served upon the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 10-7-2009. None appeared for the plaintiffs. 2. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 3 objected granting the present chamber summons on the ground that if the amendment as proposed is allowed, it would mean that the plaintiffs is allowed to change the cause of action and introduce altogether new cause of action on the pretext that oral agreement was entered into between the parties. She made reference to the affidavit in reply containing various objections raised in the affidavit sworn by Mr. Sandeep Satish Rashikar. According to the learned counsel for defendant No.1 to 3, the oral agreement which is now sought to be pleaded in the chamber summons, was no where referred to in the plaint. The plaintiff is trying to introduce new conceptual story to fill the gaps in the plaint, which would result into serious prejudice to the defence. 3. The learned counsel who represented defendant No.5 submitted that although he had informed about the death of defendant No.5 to the plaintiff’s counsel on 15-7-2009 as well as on 5-8-2009, no steps were taken on behalf of the plaintiffs for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant No.5 (deceased) on record. That being so, in view of the Order 22 Rule 4(3) of CPC, this suit has abated as against defendant No.5. 4. Considering the averments in the plaint, the objections raised by way of reply to the chamber summons and the submissions at the bar, it does appear that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to introduce the new cause of action on the pretext of amending the plaint. Further more, no steps have been taken to implead the heirs and legal representatives of defendant No.5 who died long back on 3-7-2009. Although this chamber summons called for hearing on 29-4-2010, none appeared for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the chamber summons was kept for final hearing today. Today also none appear for the plaintiffs. It does appear that the plaintiffs have lost interest in the suit or in the chamber summons or to proceed further or to take necessary steps. 5. For the reasons stated above, the chamber summons is dismissed with costs. (A.P. BHANGALE, J.)