Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 527/19 in S.C.Suit 210/19 1
CNR No. MHCC010025962019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.527 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.210 OF 2019
Mr. Amar Jairam Gera ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Amol Ajit Pandit & Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Learned Adv. Mr. Pratap Singh for plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Mr. Jadhav for defendant nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE
(C.R.No.04)
DATED : 28th November, 2019.
: ORAL ORDER :
The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for
adding the respondents as party defendant nos.3 and 4 in this suit as
per the Schedule annexed to it.
2. According to the plaintiff, his father was the original tenant
of the suit premises and he was also in possession of the same along
with his father. Further, it is contended by the plaintiff that his father
died on 05/05/2018 in the suit premises itself. However, when he had
gone to Pune on 25/12/2018 for his personal work, the defendants
along with the respondents took disadvantage of his absence and
forcibly entered into the suit premises on 08/01/2019 by breaking open
the lock. It is also contended by the plaintiff that defendant and
respondent threw away all his goods and articles and put their lock on
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 527/19 in S.C.Suit 210/19 2
the suit premises. Further, it is contented by the plaintiff that though
he had filed suit for possession of the suit premises against the
defendants only, but as per the statement made by defendant nos.1 and
2, it was disclosed to him that the respondents are now in possession of
the suit premises. As such, for prosecuting the suit in proper manner, it
has become necessary to join the respondents as party defendants.
3. On the contrary, the respondents, who are in fact the
proposed defendants, resisted the Chamber Summons under their reply
dated 15/11/2019 and denied all the adverse allegations made against
them by the plaintiff. They came out with the case that the plaintiff’s
father i.e. the original tenant had already surrendered all his tenancy
rights along with the possession of suit premises during his lifetime to
respondent no.1 somewhere in December 2017. As such, they prayed
for dismissal of the Chamber Summons.
4. Heard rival submissions on both the sides. Also perused
the documents on the record.
5. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the
suit premises against the defendants under section 6 of The Specific
Relief Act, 1963, wherein there is no need to decide ownership right.
Only it has to be seen whether he was wrongfully or forcefully
dispossessed within the period of 6 months prior to filing of this suit.
Further, though the respondents have claimed that the father of the
plaintiff, during his lifetime, had already surrendered the suit premises
to respondent no.1, but the said fact is to be established in the light of
evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff is also under obligation to prove his
possession over the suit premises within the period of 6 months prior to
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 527/19 in S.C.Suit 210/19 3
filing of this suit. Thus, it appears that all respective contentions raised
by the rival parties as well as the respondents are open and the same
can be determined in the light of evidence. The say of respondents
indicates that the suit premises was surrendered to respondent no.1 and
the present respondent no.2 is her husband. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that inclusion of respondents as party defendant nos.3 and 4 is
necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, since it appears that
respondents are in possession of the suit premises at present. Hence, I
pass the following order :
: O R D E R :
1. Chamber Summons No.527 of 2019 is hereby allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) and the plaintiff is permitted to carry out the
amendment by adding the respondents as party defendant nos.3 and 4
as per the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons.
2. The plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendment within the
stipulated period.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Chamber Summons No. 527 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
1st Additional Principal Judge,
(C.R.No.4)
Date : 28.11.2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 28.11.2019.
Transcribed on : 29.11.2019.
Checked & Signed on : 30.11.2019.
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 527/19 in S.C.Suit 210/19 4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
30.11.2019, at 01.16 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Varsha Chowdhri
[NAME OF STENOGRAPER]
Name of the Judge
(With Court room no.)
HHJ Shri S.C. More
Court Room No.4
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/order 28.11.2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 30.11.2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 30.11.2019
-- 4 of 4 --