: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.329 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1201 OF 1995 Smt. Shantidevi Khatry & Anr. .. Plaintiffs V/s. Pinank Rajnikant Mehta & Ors. .. Defendants And Smt. Shashikala M. Parekh & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. G.A. Bhagwat i/by Divekar & Co. for the plaintiffs Mr. S.B. Amin i/by B. Amin & Co. for defendant Nos.3 to 5, and 7 to 10. ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is the Chamber Summons to bring the heirs and legal representative of the defendant No.6 on record. It is stated that the defendant No.6 expired on 31st May, 2002 there is a delay of 4 years and 181 days in moving this Chamber Summons. The explanation for the delay is given in the affidavit in support and it is contended that the plaintiffs became aware of the death only in November, 2003 and thereafter, the advocate has taken steps to write to the concerned defendant s attorneys to furnish him the names and details of the heirs and legal representatives. : 2 : Upon response being given, this Chamber Summons has been moved. 2. It is contended on behalf of the defendant No.7 that the Chamber Summons is hopelessly time barred. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained in as much as there are no particulars as to when the plaintiffs became aware of the death and some vague statements are made. Further compliance is also made with the advocate s requisitions but none the less, the Chamber Summons has been filed only in the month of March, 2007. Therefore, there is no explanation much less satisfactory for inordinate delay. 3. In the rejoinder affidavit, further details are set out and reliance is placed upon paragraph 4 of the same. 4. After having perused these materials and heard learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendant No.7, I am satisfied that the delay has been properly explained. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have been completely negligent or that the application lacks bonafides. The delay may be of 4 years 181 days, but such delays are condoned in the interest of justice and by applying liberal principles. Ultimately, the rule is that everybody should have an opportunity of their claim being adjudicated and decided on merits. In exceptional circumstances, such delays should not be condoned. However, from the record : 3 : the circumstances do not appear to be such so as to refuse the request of the plaintiffs. 5. In the result, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c). The plaint shall be allowed to be amended in terms of the Schedule so also by incorporating the further details which are placed on record by the plaintiffs advocate in the light of draft amendments. Let this plaint and proceedings be amended in terms of the Schedule so also the draft amendments within a period of 2 weeks from today but on the condition that the plaintiffs pay costs quantified at Rs.1,500/- to the defendant No.7 or their advocate. If the costs are paid and proof is produced, the plaint will be allowed to be amended. In default, the Chamber Summons stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)