Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Order on C/S.362-2020 in Su.No.442-12
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.362 OF 2020
(CNR No. MHCC01-002438-2020)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 442 OF 2012
Satyam “A” Wing Premises Co-op Society Ltd. ]...Plaintiffs
Versus
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr. ]...Defendants
And
1. Kirit J. Shah
2. Sudhir J. Shah
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI U.J. MORE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 27th February, 2020
============================================================
Appearances:-
Ld. Advocate Mr.Gajanan Shinde for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs.Patil for defendant/MCGM.
=====================================
ORDER ON CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.362 OF 2020
1. This is Chamber Summons filed by the plaintiff to make
amendment by deleting the name of Plaintiff No.2 on the cause title to
plaint. As he expired on 04.02.2019 defendant corporation has filed say
and objected Chamber Summons as it is not filed within stipulated
period.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Order on C/S.362-2020 in Su.No.442-12
2. Heard, Adv. Shinde for plaintiff and Adv.Mrs.Patil for
defendant corporation at length.
3. The death certificate reveals that Ashwin Jayantilal Shah
Plaintiff No.2 expired on 04.02.2019. It is admitted fact that, there is
delay at the instance of plaintiff. The legal heirs of the plaintiff No.2 is
necessary adjudicate dispute on merits.
4. I would like to focus a light on the provision of order 6 rule
17 of C.P.C.
“Amendment of pleadings – The Court
may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party
to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be necessary for
the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion
that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
5. It is observed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ
petition No. 2897 of 2006 on dated 20.10.2006.
“The courts while deciding he application for
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Order on C/S.362-2020 in Su.No.442-12
amendment should not adopt a hyper-technical
approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule
particularly in case where the other side can be
compensated with the costs. Amendment need to be
allowed to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of
litigation.”
6. Thus, if plaintiff wants to make the amendment on the
subsequent act of the corporation i.e. defendant which is consequential.
It will not change the nature and character of the suit. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order:
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.362 of 2020 in terms of prayer clause (a)
and (b) is made absolute with subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be
paid legal aid office defendant of City Civil Court, Mumbai.
2. Plaintiff to carry out amendment within two weeks.
3. Chamber Summons No.362 of 2020 is disposed off
accordingly.
(U.J. More)
Judge,
Date : 27.02.2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 27.02.2020
Transcribed on : 28.02.2020
Signed by HHJ on : 02.03.2020
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Order on C/S.362-2020 in Su.No.442-12
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 02.03.2020 at 1.45 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr.G.R.Suryawanshi
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. U.J.More.
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
27.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
02.03.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
02.03.2020
-- 4 of 4 --