1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Chamber Summons No.635 of 2008 In Suit No.1450 of 1999 Mahednrakumar Chatrbhuj Sanghvi & ors. .. Plaintiffs v/s. M/s. S.P.Builders & ors. .. .. Defendants A n d 1. The Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai. 2. P.R.Advertising Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.H.J . Thakore i/by Thakore Zariwala & Associates for plffs. Mr.N.A.Modi with Mr.H.T. Maneksa for respondent No.1. Mr.R.Damania for defs.1 & 2. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 30 th April 2008 P.C. : 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for bringing on record the respondents as party defendants upon the transfer of the rights of the defendants in the suit and the appointment of Court Receiver. The Court Receiver was appointed in this suit in 1995. He became custodia legis. The defendants have sought to transfer their rights, title and interest in the suit property to respondent No.2 under a Deed of Transfer dated 22 nd June 2000. I am told that this is subject to the rights of the Court Receiver. The plaintiffs were not informed 2 of the transfer. 2. The plaintiffs have also sought to join the Court Receiver as a party to the suit. Leave to join the Court Receiver has been granted by the Court of Small Causes on 31.1.2006 in LD Suit No.251of 2002. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon transfer respondent No.2 claimed the rights in the suit property. Consequently, by a letter dated 10.8.2004 of respondent No.2 addressed to the plaintiffs' Advocate it was mentioned that they be substituted as defendants and they be joined as co- respondents. That is precisely what the respondents have sought to do, albeit belatedly. 4. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that they had informed the plaintiffs of similar rights which accrued in favour of the respondents by an earlier letter dated 25.4.2002. The letter is not annexed to the affidavit- in-reply. Paragraph 4.1 of the affidavit- in-reply itself shows that the right, title, interest, claims and demands of the defendants have been transferred to respondent No.2 as mentioned in the said letter. The plaintiffs contend that they have received only the letter of 2004. 3 5. It is argued on behalf of the defendants and the respondents that the suit against respondent No.2 would be barred by the Law of Limitation. That would be so if the plaintiffs require any rights to be granted to them upon the title of respondent No.2 or have challenged their title. The cause of action would accrue to the plaintiffs on the date of the knowledge of the rights claimed by the respondents. In this case, the suit was filed against the defendants. When the Court Receiver was appointed pending the suit and pending the possession of the Court Receiver, certain rights have been transferred. The plaintiffs have not sought to challenge those rights. The plaintiffs only require to sue the party who has the rights which the defendants have transferred. A question of limitation, therefore, would not accrue upon such rights being transferred to another party pending the suit. It is only a subsequent event which is required to be brought on record and the subsequent parties who are required to be sued. 6. The amendments, therefore, do not suffer from the vice of lack of bonafides or can be stated to be barred by the Law of Limitation. 7. I am informed that the defendants and the respondents have sued the plaintiffs in this Court for protection of their 4 possession and other ancillary reliefs. The determination of the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit and the defendants and the respondents in the suit for protection of possession would require to be adjudicated upon on merits together. It would not be in the interest of justice not to allow the plaintiffs to sue and to allow the suit of the defendants /respondents for protection of their possession claimed by respondent No.2 upon the Deed of Transfer. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay requires to be condoned and the amendments are required to be granted. The plaintiffs shall amend the plaint as per the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons within four weeks from today. The plaintiffs shall also amend the plaint served upon the defendants within four weeks from today. The plaintiffs shall serve a copy of the amended plaint upon the respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. 8. Mr.Modi states that he has no instructions to waive service and hence, shall not waive service. The plaintiffs shall, therefore, serve a writ of summons of the amended plaint upon respondent No.2 within eight weeks from today. The plaintiffs shall serve a copy of the amended plaint upon the Court Receiver's agent since the Receiver is already acting in this suit. The Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly. 5 9. Mr.Modi applies for stay of this order. The application is rejected. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]