Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS No.11-2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.11 OF 2020
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.437 OF 2012
CNR NO.:- MHCC01-000112-2020
Sitaram Ramcharitar Pandey and Anr. … Plaintiffs
Vs.
Amrutlal Kadedin Pandey and Anr. … Defendants
AND
Arcadia Developers Pvt Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents (Proposed
defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Tripathi for plaintiffs.
Ld. Adv Pravin Labde for the defendant No.1.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. S. PAVASKAR
(C.R.NO.12)
DATED : 10th FEBRUARY 2021
ORAL ORDER
Plaintiffs have taken out this chamber summons under
Order I Rule 10 and VI and Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
2. Heard. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the
chamber summons and the reply.
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
CS No.11-2020
3. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for getting permanent
accommodation in place of Room No.57, Nalwala Chawl No.1, Sane
Guruji Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai 400 011
(hereinafter referred to as “
suit premises”). From the affidavit filed in
support of chamber summons, it appears that during the pendency of
the present suit, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement dated
27.08.2019 with Arcadia Developers Pvt. Ltd in respect of the suit
premises.
4. To my mind, the presence of Arcadia Developers Pvt. Ltd is
necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the question involved
in the present suit. Arcadia Developers Pvt. Ltd and its directors are,
thus, necessary parties to the present suit. It is, therefore, necessary to
allow the plaintiff to join Arcadia Developers Pvt. Ltd and its directors
namely Yogesh I. Halkara and Indermal N. Halkara as defendants No.2
to 5 to the present suit.
5. The proposed amendment is based on subsequent events
and is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the real
question in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of
the proceedings. The proposed amendments if allowed to be
incorporated in the plaint would not change the nature of the suit.
Considering the said facts and for complete and effectual adjudication
of the dispute, to my mind, it is necessary to allow plaintiffs to amend
the plaint as per schedule to the chamber summons. So, I hold that
chamber summons deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)
and proceed to pass the following order:-
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No.11-2020
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.11 of 2020 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Necessary amendment be carried out in the plaint
as per schedule to the chamber summons on or before the
next date.
3. Costs shall be costs in the cause.
4. Chamber Summons No.11 of 2020 is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
R. S. PAVASKAR
Judge,
Dated : 10/02/2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 10/02/2021
Transcribed on : 10/02/2021
HHJ signed on : 10/02/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
12.02.2021 5.42 p.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri. R.S. PAVASKAR (CR 12)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
10.02.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
10.02.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
12.02.2021
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --