1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION CST/76/2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.48 OF 1992 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.319 OF 1992 Dr.Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare & anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Dr.Suresh alias Surendra Vithal Rananavare & ors. ...Defendants Mr. H. T. Pawar for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Pankaj Das for Defendant no.2/applicant. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 6th October, 2009. P.C.- 1 This chamber summons has been taken out by defendant no.2- caveator practically after 19 years. 2 After going through the Schedule of amendment and after hearing both the parties, there are no new facts brought on record. All those facts as mentioned, were well within the knowledge of the defendant/objector. The trial is going on. The plaintiff has already filed affidavit in chief. Considering the scope and purpose of the amended Code of Civil Procedure i.e. Order 6, Rule 17 (Proviso), I am not inclined to grant this chamber 2 summons as there is no justifiable reason and/or material placed on record for the delay in moving such application after 19 years. 3 The submission that these amendments are clarificatory in nature, it means that the defendant has already raised these pleas, and, therefore, to support, he can lead appropriate material and evidence. 4 The chamber summons is therefore dismissed. No costs. 5 The Testamentary Suit No.48/92 is adjourned to 13.10.2009 for appointment of Commissioner. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)