Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch.S.10-2019 in Suit no. 2173-2012
CNR NO.MHCC010000632019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 10 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2173 OF 2012
Shri Ramashankar Ramdev Pandey ]...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ]... Defendants
Coram : Shri Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 07th August, 2019.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. A.K. Pandey for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Smt. Patil for defendant/MCGM.
Defendant no. 2 in person.
ORDER
1. By this Chamber Summons, the plaintiff seeks to adds paragraphs
nos. 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) in the plaint. Paragraph no. 4 (a) relates to
documents obtained under RTI Act. Paragraph no. 4 (b) relates to the
list of documents of tenants in respect of the suit building filed in the
Small Causes Court, Mumbai. Admittedly, the issues are framed in the
suit on 05.07.2014.
2. The defendant no. 2 had objected the amendment. It is
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Ch.S.10-2019 in Suit no. 2173-2012
contended that the plaintiff had failed to show due diligence. It is
contended that the documents cannot be taken on record. It is
contended that the chamber summons deserves to be dismissed.
3. Heard Learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Learned Advocate
for the defendant corporation and defendant no. 2 in person.
Order VI Rule 17 reads as under:
''17. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be
necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after
the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in
spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.''
4. Admittedly, the documents are obtained under RTI Act on
22.08.2012 for amending the paragraph nos. 4 (a), 4 (b) and 4(c). The
list of tenants has sought to be produced. The plaintiff only seeks to file
the documents on record. It was for the plaintiff to plead specifically
inspite of due diligence, the documents cannot be produced.
The documents are secured by the plaintiff in the year 2012 and
2017. Those are sought to be produced now. The suit is old, issues are
framed and the trial has commenced. Hence, chamber summons
application for amendment, therefore, cannot be entertained and stands
dismissed. In the result, following order is passed.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Ch.S.10-2019 in Suit no. 2173-2012
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 10 of 2019 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date: 07.08.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 07.08.2019
Transcribed on : 08.08.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 09.08.2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 09.08.2019 at 1.55 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. S. N. Yadav
C.R. no.05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
07.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
09.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
09.08.2019
-- 3 of 3 --