bsb 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 CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1853 OF 2004 SUMMONS NO. 1853 OF 2004 SUMMONS NO. 1853 OF 2004 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 3185 OF 2003 NO. 3185 OF 2003 NO. 3185 OF 2003 Hamid Khan Mahammad Khan Pathan ... Plaintiff v/s Nazmunnisa Aziz Khan & ors. ... Defendants And Afzal Khan Aziz Khan & anr. ... Respondents Ms.Pooja agrawal holding for Dr.M.Shah Alal Khan for the plaintiff. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This is a chamber summons pending in this Court from the year 2004. An order was passed on 15.6.2005 which was not complied with and, therefore, the chamber summons was dismissed. Thereafter the chamber summons was restored on 6.12.2007 and time to serve was granted. 2. Now, the learned advocate for the plaintiff relies upon an affidavit of service dated 18.3.2009 and states that all parties to this chamber summons are served. When asked as to what "all parties" would indicate, she 2 states that defendants to the suit are being served and it is not necessary to serve the respondents as they would be served after the chamber summons is allowed. 3. The plaintiff has stated that the 1st defendant has expired. The suit has already abated against the 1st defendant and stands dismissed. 4. Now she claims that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1. However, she fairly states that they are not served. In my view, how service on merely the defendants and that too by publication in a newspaper which cannot be said to be a newspaper having wide circulation within the area of residence of parties, can be said to be a substantial compliance with the requirement of service on all parties to the chamber summons has not been clarified at all. Chamber summons is admittedly unserved since its institution and is pending for the last more than five years. There is no alternative but to dismiss it, which is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.) J.)