1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 45 OF 2008 Mandakini Surendra Parelkar @ Paralkar & Ors. .... Plaintiffs. V/s. Mr. Narayan Gajanan Parelkar & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Satish Shetye a/w. Smita Mhatre for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Defendants 2 to 6. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 29th JULY 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Shetye, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Udeshi, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 2 to 6. It is stated that Defendant No.1 is duly served. Affidavit proving service may be filed within a period of one week from today. 2. The limited request that is made in this Chamber Summons is that after the proceedings were converted into Suit, the affidavit of documents will have to be filed by both sides and directions be issued in that behalf. It is directed that affidavit of documents be filed within a period of four weeks from today. 2 3. Secondly, the relief claimed is that Plaintiff No.2 is 82 years of age. She has suffered several problems and although, her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief would be duly filed, yet, the cross examination of this witness/Plaintiff No.2 may be permitted by appointing a Commissioner to record her evidence at the residence. 4. It is stated that the Plaintiff desires to examine Mr. R.D. Ovalekar, Advocate but he is aged 86 years and therefore, he should be permitted to be examined on commission. 5. Having perused this Chamber Summons and the affidavit in support and finding that there is no opposition thereto, I am of the opinion that the Chamber Summons deserves to be made absolute. Accordingly, it is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) to (c). 6. This order does not preclude the contesting parties from raising such pleas as are permissible in law with regard to maintainability of the proceedings but there is no objection to recording evidence of Plaintiff No.2 and Mr. Ovalekar, Advocate at their residence. 7. Needless to state that even Mr. Ovalekar is ill. After the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of both Plaintiff No.2 and Mr. Ovalekar is duly filed, both witnesses can be examined on commission at their residence. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)