1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS 612 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2379 OF 1992 Narayan Vinayak Desai & Anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants. Mr. H.N.Thakore i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Rahul Chitnis i/by M/s. Shah & Sanghavi for Defendant No.3. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 20TH JULY, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons pursuance to the order dated 17th January, 2009. Therefore, there is no objection to the Chamber Summons/ amendment with regard to the prayer clause (2) of the Schedule. 2 There is also no objection with regard to the clause (1) of the schedule for “ The plaintiffs state that pursuant to the Consent Terms dated 23rd July, 2004 filed in the above matter between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 the suit is settled against the Defendant no.1 and the Suit against the Defendant No.2 is withdrawn”. The learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.3, however objecting to the rest of the contents. 2 3 The Plaintiffs’ prayer is with regard to the agreement dated 17/01/1989, whereby the declaration is sought that it be declared null and void. The suit is for the possession. 4 The Plaintiffs’ case is that Defendant No.3 is a trespasser, whereas Defendant No.3’s case is that he is a tenant. These facts are already part of the record. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant this marked portion. 5 The chamber summons is allowed, accordingly. No order as to costs. However, Defendant No.3 is permitted to raise the consequential defences. 6 The amendment to be carried out on or before 3rd August, 2009. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)