:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 418 OF 2008 IN SUIT (L) NO.1354 OF 2004 WITH PAUPER PETITION NO. 1 OF 2005 Ms.Farhat Jahan Ansari ...Plaintiffs Versus Parchhaiyan Co-op Hsg. Soc.Ltd ....Defendants ====== Mr.A.J.Ansari with Mr.N. Raja, Adv. for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.Jain with Ms.Jain i/by. Zohair and Co. Adv. for the Defendant nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Ansari, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr.Jain appearing for Defendant nos.1 and 2. 2. In the Affidavit-in-support of this Chamber :2: :2: :2: Summons itself, the Deponent has stated that the Chamber Summons earlier taken out being Chamber Summons No. 1768 of 2007 was dismissed by this court on 28.1.2008 with liberty to take out a fresh Chamber Summons in the event of the Suit being restored to the file. However, it is urged by Mr.Ansari that the Suit is restored to the file and my attention is invited to paragraph 10 of the Affidavit-in-support of the present Chamber Summons in that behalf. Mr. Ansari, submits that, the present Chamber Summons is maintainable. He submits that all office objections are removed. The plaint is restored to the file and the only issue now remains is whether the plaintiff must pay court-fees as an ordinary litigant or whether he is a pauper and indigent person. He submits that the inquiry into pauperism is pending. He therefore submits that in law he can be permitted to amend the plaint during the pendency of such inquiry. 3. Mr.Ansari, sought to rely upon some judgements in that behalf. 4. This Court in Chamber Summons No.1768 of 2007 :3: :3: :3: in Pauper Petition No.1 of 2005 in Suit (Lodg) No.1354 of 2004 has passed the following order :- ". It appears that by a self-operative order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the plaint stands rejected under Rule 986. In view of that, the Chamber Summons is dismissed with liberty to take out a fresh Chamber Summons in the event of the Suit being restored to file. 5. In my view, the plaintiff was at liberty to take out fresh Chamber Summons upon restoration of the Suit. Today, the case made out is that all objections raised by the office are removed, save and except with regard to payment of court-fees. The fact remains that the order of this court records dismissal of the suit. It is not as if this court has not protected the plaintiff. It is in such circumstances, I indicated to Mr.Ansari that the present Chamber Summons is misconceived and not maintainable at this stage. After all inquiries are concluded and the plaintiff is successful in demonstrating that the suit is restored to the file, he can move the court and seek reliefs as are prayed for in the Chamber Summons. However, Mr.Ansari states that there are no instructions to :4: :4: :4: withdraw the Chamber Summons. 6. In the light of the order passed by this court and considering the aspect of an inquiry with regard to plaintiffs pauperism, being pending, I see no reason to grant any relief on this Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons is dismissed with the liberty that is reserved in the order passed on 28.1.2008. No costs. ********