1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. APPEAL NO.722 OF 2002 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.743 OF 2001 IN SUIT NO.36 OF 1984 Vijayprakash Chandrarao Sawant Appellant vs. 1. Ramakant Chandrarao Sawant & ors. Respondents Mr.G.R.Joshi i/b.Mr.Vijay Bhate with Mr.Karl Shroff for the Appellant. Mr.Anil Anturkar i/b.Mr.S.Deshmukh for Respondent no.4. None for Respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED : 18th January 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for Respondent no.4. The Respondents 1 to 3 are not present though served. The learned counsel for the Appellant undertakes to file Affidavit of Service with regard to the same within a period of two weeks from today. 2. Appeal is admitted. 3. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2 4. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the Order dated 14th December, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had rejected the Chamber Summons No.743/2001 whereby the original Defendant no.2 was seeking to transpose himself as Plaintiff in place of Plaintiff to prosecute the above Suit No.36/1984. The learned Single Judge had rejected the Chamber Summons mainly on the ground that the original Defendant No.2 had not explained or given any reasons for condonation of delay of 270 days in taking out the above Chamber Summons. Now the Appellant being the original Defendant no.2 has filed a detailed Additional Affidavit dated 14.01.2008 wherein the original Defendant No.2 has explained the circumstances in detail under which the delay had occurred. The reasons appear to be sufficient. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Even the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has no objection. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice, the impugned Order dated 14th December, 2001 is set aside and the original Chamber Summons No.743/2001 is allowed whereby Defendant No.1 is allowed to be transposed as Plaintiff in the above Suit to prosecute the above Suit. 3 Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. 6. Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 states that his client will not create or induct any third party without prior permission of this Court. He also states that Respondent No.4 will carry out only tenantable repairs as contemplated under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in the said premises and it is also made clear that whatever repairs that will be carried out will be subject to the final decision in the above Suit. 7. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly in the above terms. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] J.] J.]