Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: .1. CH/S No.173/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 2224/2019.
MHCC010012422020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 173 OF 2020.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2224 OF 2019.
Ramachal Ramnaresh Patel. …........………………..................... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. …................…… Defendant.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani.
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 1st March, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, the Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Jyoti V. Mhatre, the Ld. Advocate for Defendant.
*****
01. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons, U/O. VI
Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for amendment in the body
of the plaint. By filing this Chamber Summons, the plaintiff's only worry
is to bring on the record that on 28.12.2019, the defendant passed the
Speaking Order in the present suit and the copy thereof was pasted on
the suit premises on 30.12.2019. On it's bare perusal, it is clear that this
Order came to be passed mechanically, without application of mind, and
even without considering the documents, filed by him with reply. In the
circumstances, the same needs to be set at rest. The defendant objected
this Chamber Summons on the count that the very passing of this Order
will give a separate cause of action to the plaintiff. This amendment will
change nature of this suit, which is impermissible. Heard both the sides.
-- 1 of 4 --
.2. CH/S No.173/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 2224/2019.
02. Considering the record, the points for determination, along-
with my findings and the reasons therefor, are as under :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
(i). Whether the proposed amendment is
necessary for deciding the real question
in controversy between the parties ?…. ..... Yes.
(ii). What Order ? .............…....................... …. As per final Order.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1:
03. By filing the Chamber Summons, the plaintiffs’ only anxiety
is to bring on the record that on 28.12.2019, the defendant passed this
Speaking Order, which was pasted on the suit premises on 30.12.2019.
This Order is mechanical and is passed without the application of mind.
In the circumstances, it is to be set aside. As such, the plaintiff preferred
this Chamber Summons for incorporation of the said facts in the plaint
and on it's basis, amendment in the prayer clause. Needless to say that
passing of this Speaking Order is an event occurred during pendency of
the suit. Moreover, it is not a disputed fact even by the defendant. He is
denying the Chamber Summons mainly on the ground that the plaintiff
could have filed a separate suit, which doesn't seem to be a considerable
ground to discard this amendment. Contrarily, it appears that passing of
the Speaking Order, being the subsequent event, is to be incorporated in
the plaint to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties. Surely,
against this Speaking Order, the plaintiff is not required to initiate the
second round of litigation by filing a separate suit. Needless to say that
the proposed amendment is also formal in nature. It would not change
basic tenor of this suit. Moreover, it would not cause any prejudice even
to the defendant. Moreover, the suit is still at an initial stage. Above all,
-- 2 of 4 --
.3. CH/S No.173/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 2224/2019.
it would be for the plaintiff to substantiate his contentions on merit. In
the result, I am of the view that this proposed amendment would assist
this Court to decide the real question in controversy between the parties
and therefore, it deserves to be allowed. Certainly, the pending Notice
of Motion does not fall with the category of 'pleadings' as defined U/O.
VI of the C.P.C. and so, it can not be amended by virtue of this Chamber
Summons. Consequently, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative and
in answer to point No.2, I pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). The Chamber Summons No.173/2020 is granted only
to the extent of allowing the plaintiff to carry out the
proposed amendment in the body of the plaint.
(ii). The plaintiff is directed to carry out the proposed
amendment in the body of the plaint, positively within
two weeks from the passing of this Order.
(iii). The prayer for amendment in pending Notice of Motion
stands rejected.
(iv). Costs to follow the event.
(v). The Chamber Summons No.173/2020, stands disposed off.
Sd/-
{A.G. Santani}
Mumbai. Ad-hoc Judge,
Dated : 01.03.2022. City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 01.03.2022.
Transcribed on : 01.03.2022.
Signed on : 01.03.2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
.4. CH/S No.173/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 2224/2019.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER”
On 02.03.2022 at 12.30.p.m. Mrs. S.R.Mejari
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) H.H.J. A.G. Santani
C.R. No.11
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
01.03.2022.
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on 01.03.2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 02.03.2022.
-- 4 of 4 --