Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.274 OF 2020
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.850 OF 2017
Canara Bank ... Plaintiff
V/s
1. Mr.Ramdin Gupta
2. Mr.Rahul Ratnakar Gaikwad ....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. 2,08,808/-. 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 serve 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 "Mr.Ramdin Gupta" instead of "Mr. Ramdin
Badriprasad Gupta" 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.
Lastly, it is submitted if the amendment is carried out no prejudice
-- 1 of 3 --
2
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.850/2017 as pointed
out by plaintiff as the suit is registered against defendant no.1
Ramdin Gupta. 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 Ramdin
Gupta. 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 "Mr.Ramdin Badriprasad Gupta". 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.274/2020 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
Dictated on :- 13/02/2020
Typed 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 --