1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 809 OF 2009 Bajrang Maruti Bhoir (since deceased) & ors. ... Applicants v/s Shri Ganpat Bhiva Bhoir (since deceased) & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.M.Patil for the applicants. Mr.V.R.Tripathi for respondent Nos.1A to 1D. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 7TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 17th November, 2009 by which the application filed by the applicants for withdrawal of the Chamber Summons No.186 of 2009 with liberty to file a fresh chamber summons was rejected. The reason mentioned in the application was that there were typographical errors in the schedule to the chamber summons and inadvertently a sentence which was required to be deleted from para 7 of the 2 written statement had not been mentioned in the schedule. 2. The Trial Court has refused permission to withdraw the chamber summons on the ground that filing of the same was one of the dilatory tactics adopted by the applicants. The Trial Court has also observed that there was no reason as to why it was necessary for the applicants to have obtained a certified copy of the written statement when the applicants should have had a copy of the same. 3. In my view, the reasons set out in the impugned order are unsustainable. The application clearly states that the only reason why the applicants had sought withdrawal of the chamber summons was because there was a variance in the line numbers of the written statement as mentioned in the schedule and the written statement filed on record. This came to light after a certified copy of the written statement was obtained. It could be that the copy of the written statement available with the applicants was not in accordance with the Court’s copy and, therefore, it was necessary to change the line numbers. The applicants could always have sought an amendment of the chamber summons by filing a fresh chamber summons. However, instead of doing so, the applicants sought to withdraw the earlier chamber summons and to file a fresh incorporating the same 3 schedule. Only the line numbers were to be changed and one sentence was to be deleted from the written statement. This deletion was an additional amendment sought and it had not been mentioned in the earlier chamber summons. In my opinion, therefore, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents/plaintiffs had the application been allowed. 4. In any event, the reasoning of the Trial Court that it was not necessary for the applicants to have obtained a certified copy of the written statement when a copy was available with them, is also unsustainable. It was only because the applicants obtained a certified copy of the written statement, was it possible for them to indicate that the line numbers mentioned in the schedule will not be in accordance with the Court’s copy of the written statement. Obviously, therefore, it was necessary for them to either file a chamber summons for amending the earlier chamber summons or to withdraw the earlier and to file a fresh one for the same relief. 5. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Civil revision application allowed accordingly. However, the Trial Court will decide the merits of the chamber summons in accordance with law. ..... 4 5