Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010009492020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.140 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC01-000949-2020)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.1423 OF 2017
Mr. Mohan Khimji Boricha & Ors. … Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Maljibhai Khimji Boricha & Ors. … Defendants.
And
Piramal Reality Ltd. ...Respondent /
Proposed Defendant No.14
Appearance :
Adv. S. T. Manek for plaintiffs.
Adv. Rohit Vaishya for defendant Nos.3 to 10.
Adv. Amar Patil for defendant Nos.11 and 12 / BMC.
Adv. Renuka Swami i/b Diamondwala for defendant No.13.
The Chamber Summons proceeded ex-parte against respondent i.e.
proposed defendant No.14.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R.V. BHAKTA
(COURT ROOM NO.06)
DATE : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025.
ORAL ORDER
This Chamber Summons taken by the plaintiff to delete the name
of plaintiff No.1 who is expired on 03.09.2019 and add respondent as a
-- 1 of 5 --
2
proposed defendant No.14 as a party of this Suit.
2. The plaintiff averred that, the plaintiff No.1 Mr. Mohan Khimji
Boricha has expired on 03.09.2019. Mr. Mohan Khimji Boricha was not
married and therefore, do not have any direct heirs. However, other
legal heirs being his brother’s son and daughters and sisters as well as
sister’s son and daughters, are already on record. Therefore, name of
the plaintiff No.1 be permitted to be deleted from the title of the plaint
and proceedings and to add them as proposed defendant No.14 in the
plaint and proceedings.
3. The defendant No.13 submitted that, the above Chamber
Summons is not maintainable as there is not legal heirship certificate
produced by the plaintiff. The proposed defendant No.14 is not
necessary party to add in the suit. These defendant No.13 further
submitted that, the plaintiff has not prove why the defendant No.14 is
required to add in the above suit. The defendant No.13 further added
that, plaintiff have taken out Chamber Summons No.1818 of 2019 in
Suit No.680 of 2017 for the same relief which got dismissed by the
order dated 05.08.2023.
4. The defendant Nos.11 and 12 / BMC strongly objecting to allow
the Chamber Summons filed by the plaintiffs.
5. The defendant Nos.3 to 10 submit that, this Suit as well as
Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff is false, frivolous,
misconceived, vexatious and abuse of process of law and at the same
time not tenable or maintainable. The present suit as well as the
Chamber Summons is nothing but a malicious move on the part of the
-- 2 of 5 --
3
plaintiffs to pressurize the defendant into succumbing to the wrongful
pressure of the plaintiff and to demand monies. The defendants submit
that, even otherwise the plaintiff has failed to prove his interest in the
suit property as the plaintiff has no
locus standi in the present suit and
has failed to make out any
prima facie case for grant of the relief’s as
prayed for in the Chamber Summons. The defendants submit that, the
Chamber Summons lacks merits and should be dismissed with
compensatory costs.
6. After perusal of the death certificate it shows that, the Chamber
Summons taken to delete the name of plaintiff No.1 is taken within a
limitation from his death. Already, his legal heirs are on record.
Therefore, if the name of plaintiff No.1 is deleted from the suit, then it
will not cause any prejudice to the other side.
7. So far as the aspect of second amendment is concerned according
to the plaintiff that, during the pendancy of the suit, the defendant
No.13 who is a developer has assigned its development rights to
defendant No.14. Therefore, the interest of the defendant No.14 is
involved in the said matter, rather the plaintiff has to claim relief
against him who is a subsequent developer. Therefore, the respondent
i.e. a proposed defendant No.14 is a necessary party of this suit. On this
ground, the plaintiff has taken this Chamber Summons to add
respondent i.e. proposed defendant No.14 as a party of the suit. As
stated
supra, the respondent i.e. proposed defendant No.14 have failed
to appear before this Court despite of proper service of notice.
Therefore, it can be presumed that, they do not have any objection to
add them as a party of the suit and thats why they have chosen not to
remain present before this Court. As stated
supra, it is the contention of
-- 3 of 5 --
4
the plaintiff that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.13
assigned his development rights to defendant No.14. Therefore,
definitely defendant No.14 is a necessary party as the plaintiff is
claiming relief against him. Furthermore, for the ends of justice if this
Chamber Summons is allowed, then it will not cause any prejudice to
the either side, rather it will serve the ends of justice. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No.140 of 2020 taken by the plaintiff is
hereby allowed and disposed of, accordingly.
2. Accordingly, the name of plaintiff No.1 is deleted from this suit
and the respondent i.e. proposed defendant No.14 is added as a
defendant No.14 of this suit.
3. Plaintiff is directed to carry out necessary amendment within
limitation on or before next date.
4. Cost in main cause.
(R.V. BHAKTA)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 12.11.2025 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 12.11.2025
Signed on :
-- 4 of 5 --
5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
14/11/2025 11.30 a.m. N.S. Bakre
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. R.V. BHAKTA
(C.R.NO.06)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
12.11.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 14.11.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 14.11.2025
-- 5 of 5 --