Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.276 OF 2020
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.1477 OF 2017
Canara Bank ... Plaintiff
V/s
1. Mr.Prabhakaran Pechimuthu
2. S.Elayaraja Samuvel ....Defendants
APPEARANCE:-
Advocate R.K.Shukla for plaintiff.
CORAM : H. H. AD-HOC JUDGE
SHRI MILIND A. BHOSALE
(COURT ROOM NO. 32)
DATE : 13th February, 2020
ORDER
Perused chamber summons and affidavit in support of.
Heard Ld counsel for plaintiff.
It is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff have filed
suit against defendant for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,39,366/-. It
has further submitted by the plaintiff that after filing suit writ of
summons against both the defendant was issued but the same
could not served upon defendant no.1 due to there was
typographical error in the typing of the name of defendant no.1 as
it was wrongly type as "S.Elayaraja Samuvel" instead of
"S.Elayaraja S.V.Dravidian”. In the clause title and vakalatnama of
the suit. it is further submitted by the plaintiff that the said
mistake is typographical error occurred due to oversight of
advocate which is need to be rectified by way of amendment in
the clause title. Lastely, it is submitted if the amendment is carried
-- 1 of 3 --
2
out no prejudice is caused to the case of defendant it is prayed
that permission may be granted to the plaintiff to carry out
amendment.
I have perused record of Suit bearing No.851/2017 as pointed
out by plaintiff as the suit is registered against defendant no. 1
S.Elayaraja Samuvel". According to procedure it was upon the part
of plaintiff disclosed full name of parties however, plaintiff failed
to disclose full name of defendant no.1 and therefore, writ of
summons could not be executed to the defendant no.1 "S.Elayaraja
Samuvel". Thereafter, plaintiff came to know that there is
typographical error of the name of defendant no.1 as the correct
name of defendant no.1 is "S.Elayaraja S.V.Dravidian". In view of
the above facts and circumstances, I found that the proposed
amendment is formal in nature and if plaintiff is permitted to
carry out proposed amendment then no prejudice would be caused
to the case of defendant. Moreover, it is easy for the court also for
the purpose of execution the proposed amendment is necessary.
Under such circumstances, I come to conclusion that the proposed
amendment be permitted to the plaintiff and hence I proceed to
pass following order
ORDER
Chamber Summons No.276/2020 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a) and (b).
Date:-13/02/2020 (Milind A.Bhosale)
Ad-Hoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Bombay
Direct Dictated on :- 13/02/2020
H.H.J.Signed on :- 13/02/2020
-- 2 of 3 --
3
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13/02/2020 at 4.35 p.m. (Mrs.P.P.Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) SHRI M.A.BHOSALE
(C.R. NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
13/02/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 13/02/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13/02/2020
-- 3 of 3 --