Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s.73/2018 Sum.Suit 1320/16 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.73 OF 2018
and APPLICATION EXH.7
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1320 OF 2016
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
( CNR NO.: MHCC01-000380-2018)
Smita Rajen Desai ...Applicant/Plaintiff No.3
In the Matter Between
Gopaldas & Co.Mazgaon & Ors. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Gopaldas Corporation & Ors. … Defendants
Appearances:-
Advocate Mr.Chaitanya Chavan for the Plaintiffs.
Advocate Mr.Meveille Mukerji for the Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
DATE : 5th February 2020
C O M M O N O R D E R
1. By Chamber Summons the plaintiffs requested to grant
permission to replace the documents as per the schedule annexed with
the Chamber Summons. Vide application Exh.7 the plaintiffs requested
-- 1 of 4 --
Ch/s.73/2018 Sum.Suit 1320/16 2
to take on record the documents. The defendants resisted the chamber
summons and application Exh.7. Heard Ld Advocates on behalf of both
the parties.
2. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs argued that there has
been pleading in the plaint regarding the partnership. Inadvertently, the
copies of original partnership deeds were not annexed to the plaint but
the photocopies of the certified copies of the same were annexed.
Photocopy of partnership deed dtd.26.11.2014 is signed by only two
partners, whereas the original is signed by three partners. Therefore,
the copy of partnership deed with signatures of all the partners has to
come on record. In identical suit before the Hon'ble High court, the
request of plaintiff has been granted. No prejudice will be caused to the
defendant if the Chamber summons is allowed.
3. On the other hand Ld Advocate on behalf of the defendants
argued that the Chamber summons is not in the prescribed form. The
schedule annexed is not clear as to what is to be amended. There is no
reason as to why at the time of filing of the suit the documents were
annexed. The documents are forged and fabricated. On these grounds,
he requested to reject the Chamber summons and application Exh.7.
4. The principal objection of the defendants is that the documents
sought to be produced are forged. However, this court cannot at this
stage express any opinion regarding genuineness of the documents
either produced on record or sought to be produced. Therefore, said
objection of the defendants cannot be considered at this stage. Further
although the documents sought to be produced were not filed with the
chamber summons, later same have been produced vide application
-- 2 of 4 --
Ch/s.73/2018 Sum.Suit 1320/16 3
Exh.7. True that what has been prayed actually is the replacement of
the documents filed with the plaintiff. No specific request for
amendment. However, the basic object is to produce the documents on
record with the plaint. As the documents produced with the plaint also
form part of the plaint, further production of certain documents as
replacement or as addition amounts to the amending the part of the
plaint.
5. The most important aspect is that in the similar situation between
the same parties in summons for judgment 41 of 2017 in chamber
summons 132 of 2017 in commercial suit 131 of 2017, the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court vide order dtd.31.10.2017 dealt with exactly
similar issue regarding the same documents i.e. partnership deeds
dtd.17.04.2010 and 26.11.2014. Considering same it will be just and
proper on the part of this court to follow the same order for this
chamber summons. The Hon'ble High Court instead of granting
permission to replace the documents, granted permission to bring on
record the partnership deeds without prejudice to rights and
contentions of the defendants. This court should also go with the similar
order. Hence, order as follows is passed:
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No.73 of 2018 and application Exh.7 are
disposed with order as follows:
2. The plaintiffs are allowed to bring on record the copies of original
partnership deeds dtd.17.04.2010 and 26.11.2014 as exhibits A-1 and
E-1 to the plaint.
3. The above order shall be without prejudice to all the rights and
-- 3 of 4 --
Ch/s.73/2018 Sum.Suit 1320/16 4
contentions of the defendants including contention regarding forgery
and fabrication.
4. The plaintiff to carry out the requisite amendments on or before
next date.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Ad-Hoc Judge,
Date: 05/02/2020 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 05/02/2020
Signed on : 10/02/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
17/02/2020 at 4.55p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order 05/02/2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 10/02/2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 17/02/2020
-- 4 of 4 --