Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 18218 in SU 993699 : 1 : Dt. 05.05.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 182 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 9936 OF 1999
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 6955 OF 1999)
Sandhya Balaram Raut ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shyamrao Anant Chogle
2. Kesri Anant Chogle
3. Rangnath Anant Chogle
4. Sudha Bhauram Bhatkar
5. Pramila Yeshwant Mantri
6. Manjula @ Mangalabai Vasantrao Patil
7. Mandakini Kesrinath Patil
8. Meenakhi Malhar Rath
9. Mohana @ Prabha Shashikant Sane
10. Ratnaprabha Kesri Mali
11. Chintaman Hiraji Patil
12. Amir Chintaman Patil
13. Rohit Chintaman Patil
14. Chhaya Chintaman Patil …Defendants
Adv. Mr. Manoj Sonawane for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Thorat with Adv. Mr. Gonsalves for
Defendant no. 2 present.
Adv. Mr. Shashipal Shankar for Defendant nos. 7 to 10 present.
Adv. Mr. Vasant Dhavan for Defendant nos. 11 to 13 present.
CORAM : HHJ DR (SMT.) SRISHTY NEELKANTH
(C.R. NO.02)
DATED : 5th MAY, 2018
ORDER
This Chamber Summons has been filed by the Plaintiff for
amendment as per the Schedule annexed with the Chamber Summons.
2. The learned advocate of the Plaintiff submitted that the
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 18218 in SU 993699 : 2 : Dt. 05.05.2018
present suit was filed for partition. All the parties including the plaintiff
and the defendants during the pendency of the suit, had sold the
property i.e. CTS 46 and 44, a vacant plot of agricultural land, situated
at Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District (clause II of the Schedule) to
defendant nos. 11 to 14. The defendant nos. 11 to 14 were impleaded
as parties to the suit as they were claiming right, title and interest with
respect to CTS Nos. 44 and 46. In 2016, the defendant no. 2 had also
sold his share to defendant nos. 11 to 14. Thus, because of the changed
circumstances the said property ceased to be the subject matter of the
present suit and the defendant nos. 11 to 14 were also no longer proper
and necessary parties to the suit. He submitted that the Written
Statement had not been filed and the issues had not been framed. The
plaintiff being dominus litus should be allowed to amend the Plaint and
the proceedings as prayed in the present Chamber Summons.
3. The learned advocate of the defendant nos. 7 to 10 and 11
to 13 did not object to the Chamber Summons.
4. The Chamber Summons was objected by learned advocate
of defendant no. 2 on the ground that by a Registered Deed of
Conveyance in 2007, the plaintiff had relinquished her interest in favour
of the defendant nos. 11 to 14. The present application was barred by
Law of Limitation. No prayer for condonation of delay was there.
Hence, considering the same the application was required to be
rejected.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the roznama and documents on
record.
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 18218 in SU 993699 : 3 : Dt. 05.05.2018
6. In my considered opinion Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 would be applicable wherein it has been clearly
stated that an amendment which is necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the parties can be
allowed. The present circumstances of the case are that none of the
plaintiff and remaining defendants are claiming share in the property
which they have sold off to defendant nos. 11 to 14. It has also been
stated that the defendant no. 2 sold his share to defendant nos. 11 to 14
in 2016. Thus, for the just decision of the case it would be desirable
that the names of defendant nos. 11 to 14, against whom now no relief
is claimed and also the property with respect to which none of the
parties are contesting each other, be deleted from the Plaint and other
incidental proceedings. Thus, for the above stated reasons, following
Order is passed :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 182 of 2018 is allowed.
2. Amendment to be carried out by next date.
(Dr. Srishty Neelkanth)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Date : 05.05.2018.
Dictated on : 05.05.2018.
Transcribed on : 05.05.2018.
Signed on : 05.05.2018.
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 18218 in SU 993699 : 4 : Dt. 05.05.2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
05.05.2018 at 4.35 p.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
DR(SMT) SRISHTY NEELKANTH (C.R.
No.02)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
05.05.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
05.05.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 05.05.2018
-- 4 of 4 --