1 chs657-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.657 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.3005 OF 2006 Kishore Jagannath Mahadik .. Plaintiff Versus Hemlata Jagannath Mahadik & Anr. .. Defendants and Ketaki Kishore Mahadik & Anr. .. Proposed Plaintiffs Mr.Sachin M. Bandkar for applicants Mr.G.D.Utangale i/b. Utangale & Co. for defendants CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd November 2011. P.C.: 1] The sole plaintiff has expired on 19th November 2009. It is stated that the applicants are the only legal heirs and representatives of the sole plaintiff. They could not make an application substituting themselves in place of the deceased plaintiff earlier because, the defendant No.1 even expired on 19th September 2009. The family members could not take steps on account of the fact that the applicant No.1 is a widow and applicant No.2 is daughter of deceased being eldest and since 2 chs657-11.doc all litigation was pursued by the deceased plaintiff, that application for their substitution was not made earlier. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view may be taken and application for substitution be allowed and the abatement be set aside. 2] It is stated that in law all the three prayers can be made in this application and my attention is invited to Order XXII of CPC in that behalf. 3] Having perused the chamber summons and finding that the affidavit in reply has been filed but the same is under objection and even otherwise, it containing nothing but bare denials, in the larger interest of justice and bearing in mind that as far as possible and when there are no malafides attributed, parties should be given opportunity to prove their case on merits, the request as made is granted. 4] In the above circumstances, chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) to (d). Amendments be 3 chs657-11.doc carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5] At this stage on a suggestion made by this Court, both learned Counsel appearing for parties state that they would try and work out an amicable settlement since the dispute is a family dispute. To enable them to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, S.O. 29th November 2011. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)