Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019
in S.C.Suit No. 2279 of 2012.
1 Date 18.02.2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 244 of 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2279 of 2012
(CNR NO.MHCC01-001269-2019)
Pramila Sumansingh Thakur .. Plaintiff
Versus
New India Co-operative Bank Ltd. .. Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv.Vatsal Shah i/b MMK Law Assoc. for defendant no.1.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Judge.
C.R. No. : 7
Dated : 18.02.2020
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has filed instant Chamber Summons for carrying
out amendment as per schedule. It is the case of plaintiff that she
has filed suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant
praying for direction against the defendant to register the
Assignment Deed dated 23.08.2007. She also prayed that
defendant to bear registration expenses and to pay Stamp Duty
payable on the Assignment Deed at the time of registration of the
same.
-- 1 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019
in S.C.Suit No. 2279 of 2012.
2 Date 18.02.2020
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that, it is admitted fact that
the defendant executed Assignemnt Deed dated 23.08.2007
whereby, the defendant assigned suit property in her favour and
handed over the possession of the suit property. As per Clause 7 of
the said Assignment Deed, all the expenses of registration
including stamp duty and incidental charges has to be borne by the
defendant. It is alleged by the plaintiff that, the defendant failed
to register the Assignment Deed and therefore, penalty on stamp
duty is increasing day by day. As per Clause 7 of the Assignment
Deed, the responsibility of payment of duties is of the defendant
and therefore, she is entitled to recover the said expenses from the
defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking to incorporate the
pleadings with respect to recovery of such charges. Hence,
plaintiff prayed for allowing present Chamber Summons.
3. The Chamber Summons is opposed by the defendant by
filing his say. It is contended by the defendant that, the plaintiff
by way of present Chamber Summons, changing the cause of
action and introducing new case which is not permissible in law. It
is further contended that Trial has been commenced. Hence, after
commencement of Trial, no amendment shall be allowed.
Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the Chamber
Summons.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused Chamber Summons, reply as
well as pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed suit for
-- 2 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019
in S.C.Suit No. 2279 of 2012.
3 Date 18.02.2020
mandatory injunction against the defendant, praying for
registration of the Assignment Deed dated 23.08.2007. As per
pleadings of the plaint, it is contended by the plaintiff that, on
24.08.2007, Shri. Subhash Venkatrao Rajurkar who is the
Proprietor of M/s. Reliance Construction Company has executed
General Power of Attorney in her favour and since then she is
having possession and managing the suit property. It is further
contended that, the defendant by executing Assignment Deed,
handed over the possession of the suit property to her. As per
Clause 7 of the Assignment Deed, the defendant was required to
pay stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental charges.
But, till date they have not paid the same. Hence, she has filed the
present suit.
5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as the defendant
defaulted, she is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the
defendant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. However, there was no
pleadings with respect to recovery of expenses. It is well settled
law that the amendment can be allowed, if it is formal in nature,
and do not change the nature of the suit. In my view, the proposed
amendment do not change the nature of the suit. Rather proposed
amendment is ancilliary to the main relief prayed by the plaintiff
in the suit. Moreover, the defendant is not going to cause any
harm if, the proposed amendment is allowed. It is further well
settled law that, at the time of considering the application for
amendment, the merits of amendment can not be looked into.
-- 3 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019
in S.C.Suit No. 2279 of 2012.
4 Date 18.02.2020
Thus, in my view, the plaintiff made out the case for allowing the
Chamber Summons. Thus, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019 is hereby allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
2. Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment within 14 days
from the date of order.
3. Upon amendment being carried out, the plaintiff to file
amended plaint and also to supply copy of the same to the
defendant.
4. Defendant is allowed to made consequential amendment, if
any.
5. Parties to bear their own cost.
6. Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Dated : 18.02.2020 Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 18.02.2020 to other steno.
Transcribed on : 23.11.2020
Draft submitted on : 23.11.2020
Checked on : 23.11.2020
Signed on : 23.11.2020
-- 4 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No. 244 of 2019
in S.C.Suit No. 2279 of 2012.
5 Date 18.02.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
23/11/2020 at 1.55 p.m. (Ms. V. V. Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
18/02/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
23/11/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
23/11/2020
-- 5 of 5 --