1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1473 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.613 OF 2005 Khawer Hasanali Sheriffi .. Plaintiff and Shahtaj Sheriffi & Ors. .. Applicants Versus Laila Abbas Ali Sheriffi & Ors. .. Respondents/ Orig.Defendants and Ajabnaaz Lokzadehi & Ors. .. Respondents/ Prop.Plaintiffs Manorama Mohanty i/b. S.K.Srivastav & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Ms.S.Sonawane for applicants/orig.plaintiffs. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31st March 2008 P.C. . This is a chamber summons to bring the heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record. Some of the heirs would step in as plaintiffs whereas 2 others who are not on cordial terms with the applicants are being impleaded as defendants. 2. There is delay of one year, one month and eleven days in approaching this Court for the reliefs claimed in the chamber summons. In the affidavit in support it is pointed out that the sole plaintiff expired on 2nd October 2005. She left behind the heirs which are more particularly described in the affidavit in support. The delay is because of the fact that the proposed plaintiffs could not get the details with regard to the residential address etc. of all heirs and communicate the same to the Advocate soas to enable the Advocate to take steps. Para 4 of the affidavit in support of this chamber summons sets out the reasons for the delay. 3. The chamber summons is opposed by the proposed defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that although they are being impleaded and 3 they are also heirs of the deceased plaintiff, yet, the constituted attorney of the deceased plaintiff was none other than her husband. He was definitely aware of the death and could have been contacted for the relevant details. In such circumstances, the delay is not properly explained and there is no sufficient cause for the same. 4. Having perused the chamber summons and the affidavits filed on record so also hearing parties, I am satisfied that in the light of the liberal principles that are to be applied while considering the application of this kind (see A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4244 - Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and Ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini and Ors.), chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d). However, the amendments would be permitted to be carried out subject to the applicants paying costs quantified at Rs.2000/-. Costs condition precedent. Upon 4 costs being paid and proof produced, the plaint be allowed to be amended. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from the date of payment of costs and proof produced. Amended plaint be served within four weeks thereafter. Written statement/additional written statement within six weeks thereafter from the date of receipt of the amended plaint. Notice of Motion No.788 of 2005 is restored to file and the same be placed on board after four weeks. 5. If costs are not paid within the time stipulated above the chamber summons stands dismissed without any further reference to court. Consequently the suit also stands dismissed as abated. Under no circumstances, extension will be granted for payment of costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 5 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)