Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01001388202011 Feb 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 11 Feb 2020 · CNR MHCC010013882020

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 195 OF 2020
IN
SUIT NO. 4879 OF 2010
(CNR NO. MHCC01-001388-2020)
UCC Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. )...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Unique Constructions Corproation, )...Plaintiff.
Engineers and Contractors )
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation )...Defendant.
Appearance:-
Ld.Advocate Mr.Rajat Dedia for Plaintiff.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Bharat Gadavi for Defendant.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R.V.KOKARE
(C.R.No.31)
DATE: 11/02/2020.
O R D E R
This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff for
making amendment in the plaint. The defendant resisted this
chamber summons by filing its reply. Read the present chamber
summons, affidavit of Ashok Gyanchand Khushalani on behalf of
the plaintiff in support of chamber summons. Heard both the
learned counsels on behalf of both the sides. Perused the record.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, on scrutiny
of the proposed amendment which is mentioned in this chamber
summons in schedule, it appears that the nature of the suit will
not be changed. Moreover, it will not cause any hardship to the
-- 1 of 3 --
2
defendants. The learned counsel on behlaf of the defendants has
submitted that the present suit is filed on behalf of plaintiff in the
year 2010 and this chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff
in the month of January 2020. There is around 10 years after
filing the suit the plaintiff wants to make an amendment in the
plaint. Therefore, if this court is come to the conclusion for
allowing this chamber summons, then cost may be imposed. On
close scrutiny of proposed amendment, it appears to me that, if
proposed amendment is to be allowed, then it will not change
nature of the suit. Advocate for the plaintiff is agreed to payment
of cost of Rs.5,000/-. If this chamber summons of the plaintiff is to
be allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/-, then it will not cause
any hardship on the part of the defendants and imposing cost of
Rs.5,000/- is justiable. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff’s chamber summons no.195/2020 is hereby allowed as
prayed for subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Plaintiff and its advocate are hereby directed to carry out
proposed amendment as prayed within stipulated period.
3. The plaintiff shall deposit cost amount of Rs.5,000/- on or
before 18/02/2020 to the DLSA, Mumbai.
4. Chamber summons no.195/2020 is disposed off accordingly.
Date :11/02/2020. (R.V.Kokare)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 11/02/2020
Transcribed on : 13/02/2020
Signed by HHJ : 13/02/2020
-- 2 of 3 --
3
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
13/02/2020 5.00p.m. Mrs. V.V.Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R.V.Kokare(CR
No.31)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
11/02/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 13/02/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 13/02/2020
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.