Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH/S.410/19 IN SUM.SUIT 1066/2018 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 410 of 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1066 OF 2018
(Summary Suit Under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure)
(CNR.NO.MHCC010021242019)
Mr.Gangasingh Motisingh Jhala & Anr. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s.Hare Krishna Builders & Anr. ....Defendants
Advocate Clifford Martis for Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr.Palande for Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C. R. No.: 28)
DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER 2019
ORDER
1. Read the chamber summons and the reply to it on behalf of the
defendant.
2. By present application the plaintiff requested to grant permission
to amend the plaint and other interlocutory proceedings as set out in
the schedule by condoning delay. The defendants resisted the
application.
3. It reveals that during pendency of the proceedings, defendant no.
2 died on 17.10.2018. The plaintiff was informed about it on behalf of
-- 1 of 4 --
CH/S.410/19 IN SUM.SUIT 1066/2018 2
the defendant on 27.11.2018. The plaintiff therefore filed present
application to grant permission to carry out the amendment by taking
legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 2 on record. The
plaintiff also requested to grant permission to correct the address of
defendant no.1 in the plaint.
4. The plaintiff and his advocate did not appear to advance
arguments though called repeatedly. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the
defendant argued that there is no prayer for condonation of delay in
chamber summons. Thus, the Ld advocate on behalf of defendants
raised only one objection regarding absence of prayer of delay.
However, this court must note that the chamber summons vide prayer
clause 6(c) mentions the prayer for condonation of delay. Thus, there is
no substance in the arguments on behalf of the defendants. Admittedly
defendant no. 2 died on 17.10.2018. However, the plaintiff was
informed about it on 27.11.2018. Therefore, the delay in respect of in
between period has to be condoned. If it is so condoned, present
application will definitely be within the period of limitation of 90 days.
Therefore, request to bring the legal representatives of defendant no. 2
on record deserves to be granted by permitting to carry out amendment
in the plaint. So far as address of defendant no. 1 is concerned there is
no denial on behalf of the defendants regarding the correctness of
address of defendant no.1 as sought to be corrected in the plaint.
Therefore, same request can also be granted. In this background the
chamber summons deserves to be allowed. Hence, order as follows is
passed.
ORDER
1. The chamber summons no. 410 of 2019 is allowed as under ;
-- 2 of 4 --
CH/S.410/19 IN SUM.SUIT 1066/2018 3
a. Permission is granted to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment
in the plaint as prayed as per the schedule with the chamber summons.
b. The plaintiff to carry out the amendment and comply the
formalities on or before next date.
2. The chamber summons no. 410 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
(DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT)
AdHoc Judge,
Date: 27/11/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 27/11/2019
Transcribed on : 30/11/2019
Signed on : 04/12/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
16/12/2019 at 12.10p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
27/11/2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 04/12/2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 16/12/2019
-- 3 of 4 --
CH/S.410/19 IN SUM.SUIT 1066/2018 4
-- 4 of 4 --