Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 335 OF 2020
IN
SUIT NO. 3090 OF 2014
( CNR No.MHCC01-002249-2020)
1. Mrs, Kamaljit Kaur Chhabra & Anr. ...Plaintiffs
V/s.
1. Satnam Singh Saini
Alias Satnam Singh Masuta & Ors. ...Defendants
Appearance :-
Learned advocate N. G. Karekar for plaintiffs.
Learned advocate Kapil Shetye for defendant nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R. V. KOKARE.
(C.R.No.63)
DATED : 18/12/2021.
ORDER
1. This is a chamber summons taken out on behalf of the plaintiffs
for making amendment in the plaint . This chamber summons is resisted
on behalf of the defendants by filing their reply.
2. Heard both the learned counsels on behalf of both the sides at
length. Perused the record.
3. The plaintiffs want to add in the suit and in the prayer which are
mentioned in the Schedule-I and Schedule-II enclosed in this chamber
summons. The learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs has submitted
that considering the Schedule-I and Schedule-II, if it be allowed then
-- 1 of 4 --
2
the nature of the suit will not change. Moreover, it will not surprise to
the defendants. The evidence of the plaintiffs is not yet started.
Therefore, this chamber summons may be allowed.
4. The learned counsel on behalf of the defendants has submitted
that on careful perusal of the proposed amendment if it is allowed, then
certainly nature of the suit will be changed. The trial has been began.
Therefore, the present chamber summons taken out on behalf of the
plaintiff for making amendment in the plaint is deserves to be rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the defendants has placed his reliance on
the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of
Rajlal Sindhi V/s. Kaka & Company, Satna and Ors., decided on
31/03/1984 in Second Appeal No. 626 of 1981. The Hon’ble Madhya
Pradesh has held that, “ claim for damages in plaint was for tort
affecting economic interests under head ‘conspiracy to injure’- However,
plaintiff sought to amend plaint for recovery of damages on basis of
defamation- Hence, plaintiff wanted to introduce different cause of
action than one on which suit was brought- Permitting such an
amendment as plaintiff wanted to make would result in new case being
set up by insertion of new cause of action different from one claimed in
suit-Thus, plaintiff could not subsequently amend pleadings by
substituting one for other-Rejection of plaintiffs application for
amendment of the pliant in the first appellate Court was justified-
Appeal dismissed ”.
6. The above citation (supra) relied on behalf of the advocate for the
plaintiffs it appears to me that the ratio held in above citation with due
respect is not applicable to the present case in my hand due to differ of
-- 2 of 4 --
3
facts and circumstances.
7. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides
at length and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the issues
are framed below Exhibit-8 dated 14/02/2019. The evidence on behalf
of the plaintiff is not begin. The second objection raised on behalf of the
defendant that if this chamber summons is to be allowed then nature of
the suit will be changed. Considering the nature of the suit filed on
behalf of the plaintiff for declaration, if this chamber summons is to be
allowed, then nature of the suit will not be changed. Moreover, it will
not cause any hardship on the part of the defendant. I am of the view
that the real dispute in between the parties will be decided on merit.
Therefore, I inclined to allow this chamber summons. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Chamber summons No.335 of 2020 is hereby allowed as prayed for.
2. The plaintiffs and their advocates are hereby directed to carry out
proposed amendment within stipulated period.
3. Chamber Summons No.335 of 2020 is disposed off accordingly.
( R. V. Kokare )
Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Dated :18/12/2021. Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on: 18/12/2021
Transcribed on: 18/12/2021
HHJ signed on: 18/12/2021
-- 3 of 4 --
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
18/12/2021 at 5.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
( Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar )
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R. V. Kokare
(COURT ROOM NO.63)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
18/12/2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 18/12/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 18/12/2021
-- 4 of 4 --