acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1775 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2202 OF 2000 Mrs. Chandra Jayantilal Mainthia & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Rmesh M. Mainthia & Ors. ...Defendants. And Vasudha alias Vasundhara S. Mainthia ...Applicant --- None appears for the Plaintiffs though served. Ms. S.S. Patil i/b P.S. Gidwani, for the Applicant (Org.Defendant No.8). Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Mr. Nikhil Dhand i/b M/s. M.M. Legal Venture, for Defendant Nos.2 to 7 CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATE: 6th November, 2009 P.C. 1. The Chamber Summons is taken out for transposing the applicant, who is original defendant no.8, as plaintiff no.4. The applicant is the wife of original plaintiff no.2 Shashikant who expired in the year 2002. The name of the applicant was brought on record as defendant no.8 after the demise of her husband. The applicant was shown as defendant no.8 as she was residing in U.S. and not available for signature. It is the case of the applicant that how she is returned back to India and settled in Mumbai. 3. The Chamber Summons is for transposing her as plaintiff no.4. The suit is filed for the administration and partition of the estate of the deceased. Hence, no prejudice will be caused either to the plaintiffs or defendant nos.2 to 7 if the : 2 : name of the applicant the original defendant no.8 is transposed as plaintiff no.4. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, the Chamber Summons is allowed. The name of the applicant, the original defendant no.8, be substituted in place of her husband plaintiff no.2. The applicant to communicate this order to the learned advocate for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter to take steps to carry out the necessary amendment within a period of three weeks and supply the amended copies of the plaint to the applicant and defendant nos.2 to 7. ( R.V. MORE, J. )