1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1599 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2769 OF 1987 EDI JAMSHEDJI MAHAVA ..PLAINTIFF VS. MRS RODA FEROZ ENGINEER & ORS. ..DEFNDANTS AND MRS. SABER EDI MAHAVA & ORS. ..APPLICANTS Mr. Vinod Thakkar for the Plaintiff Mr. Rustom Khan for Defendant No.1 Ms. Severine Volado for Defendant No.2 CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 23 rd March, 2009 P.C.: 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the heirs of the deceased original Plaintiff to bring them on record of the suit. The suit has been filed between the brothers and sister to claim the movable and immovable properties of their deceased sister. The original Plaintiff died on 01.11.1990. This Chamber Summons has been taken out in September 2007. Therefore it is taken out after the suit stood abated about 17 years back. 2 2. In the Chamber Summons, the Applicants do not pray for setting aside the abatement of the suit. 3. Since the parties are relatives, they knew about the death of the original Plaintiff. The cause which is sought to be shown is that as the Applicant No.1 who has now expired, was old. The business of the 2nd Applicant suffered to a large extent. No particulars of this fact are given. The Applicant No.3 was settled abroad with his family and hence could not carry on the proceedings. 4. None of these reasons is at all sufficient to cause a delay of as long as 17 years. The said period is too long to consider that the Applicants at all sincerely desired to pursue the cause of action of the original Plaintiff which could have survived to them. 5. The Applicants have sought to show that they have in fact prepared a draft Affidavit in December, 1990 for the proposed amendments in the plaint. At the time Affidavit is stated to have been prepared a Chamber order alone would have been required. Since the Application was made within a month which is well within the time required for bringing the heirs on record. In fact this Affidavit would show that the Applicant had knowledge that the amendments were to be 3 made. Yet no action has been taken. 6. The Advocate for the Defendants has seriously contested the statement of the Plaintiff about the draft prepared in December, 1990. The original draft is not produced. The delay of 17 years does not deserve to be condoned. 7. Chamber Summons is dismissed. The suit remains abated. Notice of Motion No.1126 of 2008 has become infractuous consequent upon this order. Notice of Motion No.1126 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly. The interim arrangement between the parties shall continue for four weeks. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)