Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: .1. CH/S No. 243/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1067/2012.
MHCC010016512020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 243 OF 2020.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1067 OF 2012.
Mrs. Rati Rajan………………...…......................... …... Plaintiff.
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.... …... Defendant.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani.
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 1st March, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey, 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, he came with a specific
case that after issuing the suit notice U/s. 354-A of the MMC Act, 1888.
On 11.04.2012, he replied the same on 17.04.2012 along-with required
documents. However, on filing of the suit, he learned that the defendant
passed the reasoned Order on 17.04.2012. He received the copy thereof
on the last hearing of the suit. In view of this position, he is required to
bring on record the passing of the said Order, by necessary amendments
in the pleadings. It would not change nature of the suit and would not
cause any prejudice to the defendants. Whereas, the defendant objected
this Chamber summons on the ground that he filed detailed affidavit-in
-- 1 of 5 --
.2. CH/S No. 243/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1067/2012.
-reply on 12.08.2013. Therein, as per para 6 (c), the concerned Officer
informed that the Speaking Order came to be passed on 17.04.2012. As
such, the plaintiff knew this fact and till date he avoided to proceed this
suit by enjoying passing of ad-interim relief in his favour. Now, at this
belated stage, she wants to amend in the plaint which is impermissible.
Hence, it needs to be rejected with costs. Heard both the sides.
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 NO. 1:
03. By filing the Chamber Summons, the plaintiffs’ only anxiety
is to bring on record that during pendency of the suit, more precisely, on
17.04.2012, the defendant passed the Speaking Order. Further, only on
the last date of the hearing, he came to be served with copy of the said
Order and therefore, it has been necessary on his part to incorporate the
said fact in the body of the plaint. By filing this Chamber Summons, the
plaintiff is also praying for the relief of declaration that this Order is bad
in law. Contrarily, while assailing this Chamber Summons the defendant
submitted that in view of the reply (Exhibit 13), in para 6 (c) thereof, it
informed passing of the said Order on 17.04.2012. Certainly, it is on the
record. On this background, needless to say that the plaintiff very well
knew this fact much before. However, the record is silent to gather that
thereafter, she took any honest efforts to verify this situation and timely
-- 2 of 5 --
.3. CH/S No. 243/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1067/2012.
prefer this Chamber Summons. Here, it is worth to be noted that this
suit is filed in the year 2012 and still, it is pending on ‘pre-trial stage’.
Admittedly, an ad-interim relief is standing in favour of the plaintiff and
probably, therefore, she was least worried to bring passing of this Order
promptly on record. To sum-up, there is an inordinate delay on her part
to file this Chamber Summons.
04. Be that as it may, the fact remains that while deciding this
Chamber Summons for amendment, this Court is not supposed to scan
merits of the suit. Here, this plaintiff is assailing the said Order on the
grounds that the same was not served upon her, the documents filed by
her, along-with reply, were not considered by the defendant and it also
failed to consider that there is no first floor over the suit premises, etc..
That apart, the suit premises is part and partial of the area, declared as
‘Slum’ U/s. 41 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1976. Obviously, it
would be for the plaintiff to establish the said facts on trial. This suit is
still at the initial stage and the trial is yet to commence. Simultaneously,
the proposed amendment would definitely facilitate this Court to decide
the suit issues effectively and finally. Moreover, it would minimize chain
of litigation between the parties. In the circumstances, I am of the view
that it is to be allowed. However, while doing so, rules of natural justice
require imposition of adequate costs upon the plaintiff to have delayed
this trial. Hence, 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. 243/2020 is made absolute in
terms of Clause (a), subject to payment of costs of
Rs.3,000/- in favour of the concerned department of the
defendant/MCGM, till the next date. In case of failure, the
-- 3 of 5 --
.4. CH/S No. 243/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1067/2012.
suit would stand dismissed for non compliance of this
Order.
(ii). After payment of this costs, the plaintiff is called upon to
carry out the proposed amendment in the body of the
plaint forthwith on the next date itself.
(iii). The Chamber Summons No.243/2020 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.
-- 4 of 5 --
.5. CH/S No. 243/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1067/2012.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER”
On at a.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
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
Judgment/Order uploaded on
-- 5 of 5 --