Interim Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: ..1.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
MHCC010103292019
Presented on : 14.10.2019
Registered on : 14.10.2019
Decided on : 22.01.2026
Duration : 06Y 03 M 10 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1824 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 561 OF 2018
Rakesh Vidyasagar Sharma … Plaintiff
V/s.
Rajesh Shivsagar Sharma & 2 ors … Defendants
And
M/s. Mavani Creations LLP & 2 ors … Respondents.
(Prop.Defendant No.3,4 & 5)
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. H. C. SHENDE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 22nd January, 2026.
Appearance :-
Mr. R.R. Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Arvind Giriraj Advocate for the defendant No.1.
Mr.Saloni Doshi h/f. Advocate Bipin Joshi for defendant No.2.
Mr.Kapil Gor for defendant No.3.
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 7 --
..2.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
O R D E R
By way of this chamber summons the plaintiff has prayed
for amendment in plaint as per schedule annexed.
2. The present chamber summons taken by the plaintiff seeking
amendment to the plaint in present suit No.561/2018. The amendment
sought are to plead that the plaintiff is non-english speaking person and
was not aware of the contents of the suit No.6916/1999. The alleged
family settlement Dtd. 27.09.1998 and the consent term Dtd.
24.04.2000. Further to plead that the Permanent alternate
accommodation allotted in lieu of old flat No.5322 was never disclosed
to him and the suit flat was not subject matter of suit No.196/1999.
The plaintiff also requested to delete the present defendant No.3 on the
ground of misdescription and implead proposed defendant No.3 to 5 as
a necessary and proper parties. So also asked to incorporate pleading
challenging the reliance placed by the defendant on the said family
settlement, permanent alternate accommodation and consent term.
3. The defendants opposed the chamber summons and prayer made
therein by the plaintiff by contending that the amendments are deleted,
after filing of written statement, the amendment will change nature of
suit by introducing a entirely new challenge to the consent term of 2000
and family settlement of 1998.
It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff was party to
suit No.6916/1999 and to the consent term and therefore cannot now
put up ignorance, the proposed pleadings introduced multiple and
inconsistent cause of action. If the plaintiff desire to challenge the
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 7 --
..3.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
consent term,appropriate independent proceeding must be filed by the
plaintiff.
Further according to the defendant the chamber summons is only
an attempt to delay the present proceedings particularly since the suit
premises were demolished pursuant to the court order Dtd.7.12.2018.
4. Heard both at length. Considered the plaint, written
statement, affidavit in support of reply and record.
5. The point for determination is whether plaintiff has made
out case for allowing amendments sought ?
6. The settled principles governing amendment of pleadings
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as reiterated in various landmark
Judgments by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court which
requires the Court to examined I. whether the amendment is necessary
for determining the real controversy, II. whether it introduced a new
cause of action or changes the nature of suit. III. Whether it causes
prejudice to the opposite party which cannot be compensated in costs.
IV. Whether the application is bonafide ?
7. On challenge to consent terms and family settlement the plaintiff
seek to incorporate pleadings challenging the consent term
Dtd.24.04.2000 and the family settlement of 27.09.1998 on the ground
that, he allegedly did not know the contents of documents when suit
No.6916/1999 was compromised.
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 7 --
..4.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
8. It is admitted that the plaintiff was party to the said suit
No.6916/1999. The consent terms are signed by him. Such
compromise decree has attained finality more than 18 years prior to
filing of the present suit.
9. The present suit is filed for declaration, partition and injunction
with respect to the suit flat said to be allotted under a permanent
alternate accommodation. There is prayer in original plaint seeking to
set aside, modify or avoid the compromise decree in Suit
No.6916/1999.
10. In opinion of this Court, permitting amendment to introduce
challenge to a compromise decree of another suit after nearly two
decades, will certainly change the nature and scope of the suit. It
would convert the present suit into one seeking to set aside consent
terms, which is on independent cause of action and requires an
independent proceeding under Order XXIII Rule 3 A of Civil Procedure
Code.
11. The Bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A Civil Procedure Code prohibits
challenge to a compromise decree except filing a separate suit for that
purpose. Therefore introducing such challenge by amendment is
legally, impermissible. Then to extent the amendment seek to
incorporate pleadings disputing the validity or binding nature of the
consent terms and family settlement, the same cannot be allowed.
12. On deletion and addition of the parties the plaintiff states that the
defendant No.3 is wrongly described and certain additional parties
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 7 --
..5.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
(proposed defendant No.3 to 5) are necessary and proper party as they
are connected with title and allotment flowing from PAA. The law
permits corrections of misdiscreption and joinder of necessary parties if
such amendment is essential for complete adjudication of rights. The
proposed parties appears to be persons in whose favour rights are
claimed to have been created or who are concerned with allotment of
the suit premises. Their presence is necessary to avoid multiplicity of
suits. Allowing such amendments does not alter the basic nature of the
suit for declaration, partition and injunction. It only ensures effective
adjudication. No irremediable prejudice is shown by the defendants.
13. On plaintiffs plea that, he is is non-english speaking. The
proposed pleading that, plaintiff is a non-english speaking person and
did not understand earlier document is in nature of an explanatory
averment. So long as it does not directly seek to inviolate the consent
decree of suit No.6916/1999, it does not change the cause of action.
Such explanatory pleading may be allowed though it will not enable
him to challenge compromise decree in this suit because of statutory
bar.
14. The court in circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above
answered at conclusion that, the chamber summons deserves to be
partly allowed. Hence proceed to pass following order;
O R D E R
1. Chamber summons No.1824/2025 in Suit No.561/2018 is
partly allowed only to the extent of permitting deletion of
present defendant No.3, addition of proposed defendant No.3
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 7 --
..6.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
to 5 as party defendants in present suit and incorporation of
explanatory averments relating to facts of non-disclosure of
PAA or non-understanding of documents, provided that they
do not constitute of amount to challenge compromise decree
in suit No.6916/1999.
2. The averments seeking to introduce any pleading tantamount
to challenging, disputing or reopening the consent terms
Dtd.24.04.2000 or the family settlement Dtd.27.09.1998 or
questioning the compromise decree in suit No.6916/1999 are
rejected.
3. The plaintiff to carry out amendment within three weeks from
the date of this order I shall placed amendment plaint on
record by serving it to defendant within two week after
amendment is carried.
4. The defendants thereafter are at liberty to file their additional
written statement within four weeks.
5. No order as to cost.
6. Proceeding of Chamber Summons No. 1824/2025 in Suit
No.561/2018 is closed.
Date : 22.01.2026 (H. C. Shende )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 22.01.2026
Typed on : 23.01.2026
Checked on : 27.01.2026
Corrected on : 28.01.2026
Signed on : 28.01.2026
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 7 --
..7.. C/S. No.1824/2019 (SC No.561/18)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
29.01.2026 at 11.15 am (Mrs.Prajakta K.More, Grade-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt. H. C. Shende (C.R.No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
22.01.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
28.01.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 29.01.2026
Page 7 of 6
-- 7 of 7 --