Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/sum 134-19 in L.C.Suit no.1531-18
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 134 OF 2019
(CNR no. MHCC010008112019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1531 OF 2018
(CNR no. MHCC010051562018)
Smt. Saveetha Kumar Devendra ]..Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Angamma Ramaswamy Devendra ]... Defendant
Coram : Dr. M. S. Deshpande, Judge
(Court Room no. 01)
Date : 15th March, 2019.
Mr. R. A. Yadav, advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. K. H. Chaturvedi, advocate for defendant.
ORDER
1. In a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction, the plaintiff
has taken out this chamber summons seeking amendment to the plaint.
By proposed amendment the plaintiff wishes to bring on record facts
subsequent to the institution of the suit, which according to plaintiff are
material for the decision of the suit.
2. The learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the
suit was instituted on 17.04.2018. The plaintiff left Mumbai for
Madurai on 18.04.2018. The plaintiff wishes to add paragraph nos.
14(a) and 14(b) to state as to who constructed the room nos. 51 and
52. According to him, when the plaintiff returned Mumbai on
09.06.2018, she found that the defendant prepared forged Annexure I
and II etc. for changing the name on electricity connection. The plaintiff
also wants to bring on record that the defendant on 27.11.2018,
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Ch/sum 134-19 in L.C.Suit no.1531-18
forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff etc. she also to produce certain
documents on record.
3. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the defendant
strongly opposed the application by contending that it is not tenable.
According to him, all the allegations which plaintiff wishes to bring on
record are false. The plaintiff wants to improve her case and fill up
lacuna.
4. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for perpetual
prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant for obstructing her
possession to the suit room. According to her, after the institution of the
suit she was dispossessed by the plaintiff and the said facts she wants to
bring on record. The plaintiff is also seeking a mandatory injunction for
directing the defendant to remove the lock put by them on the suit
premises. Considering these facts, amendment appears necessary for
deciding the matter in controversy once for all. It will not change the
nature of the suit. The prejudice which may be caused to defendant by
allowing this amendment can be compensated in terms of costs. Thus,
the following order is passed :
ORDER
1. The Chamber summons no. 134 of 2019 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to payment of costs
Rs.500/ to the defendant or deposited for that purpose in the
Court within the period of two weeks from today.
Sd/
(Dr. M. S. Deshpande)
Judge,
Date : 15.03.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 15.03.2019
Transcribed on : 15.03.2019
Checked by HHJ on : 16.03.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 16.03.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Ch/sum 134-19 in L.C.Suit no.1531-18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 16.03.2019 at 4.15 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. M. S. Deshpande
C.R. no.01
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
15/03/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
16/03/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
16/03/2019
-- 3 of 3 --