Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Chamber Summons No.344 of 2019 1 Suit No.2272/2011
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS No.344 OF 2019.
IN
SUIT NO.2272 OF 2011.
(CNR No.MHCC010017802019)
Smt. Munnidevi Rajju Yadav @ Gawali and Ors. ... Plaintiffs
V/s.
Shri Satyprakash Ramsurat Singh and Ors. ... Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R. NO.07)
DATE : 10.04.2019.
Mr. Attar, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. R.D.Mishra, Advocate for Defendants.
ORAL ORDER
This is a chamber summons taken out by the plaintiff for
amendment in plaint. Perused reply submitted by defendants. The
learned advocate Attar for plaintiff submits that defendant is in habit to
file false cases against the tenants of plaintiff. There are two buildings
i.e. building no.132 and 135. The plaintiff is owner of building no.135
and defendant is claiming to be owner of building no.135. There are in
total 30 tenants of plaintiff. The defendant has filed the suit before the
Small Causes Court bearing no.3250 of 1989 in fIctious name i.e.
Bharati Kodey. It was a exparte decree dt. 07.12.1998. It is claimed
that impugned decree is obtained by fraud, it be declared as nullity. It
is prayed for amendment in the plaint. It is strongly resisted that the
decree passed by the Small Causes Court came to the finality. For
-- 1 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No.344 of 2019 2 Suit No.2272/2011
around 20 years the plaintiff was silent. In a petition before the Hon'ble
High Court possession has been handed over to the defendants in
present suit. During execution of decree passed by the Small Causes
Court, it is prayed to reject the chamber summons.
2. It is material to note that the Small Causes Court in suit
no.3250 of 1989 issued a decree on 07.12.1998. There is no
satisfactory explanation given by the plaintiff to remain silent for 20
years. The present suit is filed in the year 2011 and issues are framed
by this Court in November 2016. The plaintiff has claimed declaration
to the extent of ownership over the suit property. In respect of false
criminal cases filed by defendants there are averments in the case and
issue no.2 is already framed vide Exh.4. There is no supportive affidavit
of the tenant of the plaintiff is filed on record to prima facie infer in
respect tenants are implicated in false criminal cases.
3. The material question is whether decree issued by the
Small Causes Court and reached to its finality, can it be challenged and
declared nullity by this Court? It is admitted that plaintiff has
participated in the appeal over the decree dated 07.12.1991. On
perusal of prayer clause in present suit, the amendment sought by way
of present chamber summons is beyond the scope of the suit. Obviously
it is beyond the scope of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Resultantly, it deserves to be rejected. Hence, the order.:
-- 2 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No.344 of 2019 3 Suit No.2272/2011
ORDER
1. The chamber summons no.344 of 2019 stands rejected. No
order of costs.
2. The chamber summons no.344 of 2019 disposed of
accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI )
Judge,
Date:10.04.2019. City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 10.04.2019
Transcribed on : 15.04.2019
Signed on :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT.”
23.04.2019 at 11.30am. PUSHPA RAMESH WAGH
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI G.G.BHANSALI
(Court Room No.31)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 10.04.2019
Judgment signed by P.O. on 22.04.2019
Judgment uploaded on 23.04.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No.344 of 2019 4 Suit No.2272/2011
-- 4 of 4 --