Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR NO. : MHCC01-002570-2020. .1. CH/S No. 375/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1974/2012.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 375 OF 2020.
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 2222 OF 2019.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1974 OF 2012.
Shaila Suresh Boble…...…...................………... …. PLAINTIFF.
V/s.
M.C.G.M.+4....……………………………….….. …. DEFENDANTS.
AND
Harish B. Thakkar+4. ….................................. …. APPLICANTS.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani.
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 02nd December, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Virendra T. Dubey, Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Sunil C. Khandagale, Ld. Advocate for Defendant No.1/MCGM.
Ms. Vandana Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for Defendant Nos. 2 to 5.
Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Ld. Advocate for the Applicant.
*****
01. Applicant No. 3 - Mr. Mukesh Shah, in Chamber Summons
No. 2222/2019, has taken out this Chamber Summons (for brevity ‘the
Ch/s’.) for amendment in cause title of the said Ch/s. by substituting
the legal representatives of deceased applicant No. 1 - Harish Thakkar.
Perused the Ch/s., his accompanying affidavit and the common reply of
defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Also gone through their written submissions.
Heard both sides.
02. Considering the record, the points for determination, along
- with my findings and the reasons therefor, are as under :
-- 1 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-002570-2020. .2. CH/S No. 375/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1974/2012.
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
(i). Whether the proposed amendment is
necessary for deciding the real question
in controversy between the parties ?…. .....Yes.
(ii). What Order ? .............…....................... …. As per final Order.
-: REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS :-
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
03. By filing this Ch/s., the applicant's only anxiety is to bring
on record that after filing Ch/s. No.2222/2019, applicant No. 1 therein
Mr. Harish Thakkar expired on 18.10.2019, at Pune, leaving behind the
proposed applicants as his L.Rs.. They are the only legal heirs as well as
the L.Rs. of late applicant No. 1 and therefore, it has been necessary to
substitute their names in the cause title of the said Ch/s.. In support of
this Ch/s., he also filed the copy of Death Certificate. Defendant Nos. 2,
3 and 5 objected this Ch/s. mainly on the grounds that applicant No. 3
had to locus to file the same. He has no authority to get substituted the
L.Rs. of late applicant No. 1 in the said Ch/s.. The applicants did not file
any document/evidence establishing that they have any right, title or an
interest of whatsoever nature in the property in question. The Ch/s. also
does not disclose the cause of action. They are trying to delay the trial
and to obstruct the decree passed in Suit No. 4859/2004. Even, they did
not file the documentary evidence of their title in support of the initial
Ch/s. No. 2222/2019.
04. Having considered the rival submissions, at the out-set, it is
worth notable that prior to filing of this Ch/s., the applicants preferred
Ch/s. No. 2222/2019, where late Harish Thakkar is shown as applicant
No. 1. This Ch/s. is pending for consideration. Now, applicant No. 3 in
the said Ch/s., moved this Ch/s. just to bring L.Rs. of late applicant No.
-- 2 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-002570-2020. .3. CH/S No. 375/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1974/2012.
1 in the cause title of Ch/s. No. 2222/2019. As the said Ch/s. is pending
for consideration, the objections raised by the defendants as regards the
propriety and justness of the applicants to file the same, their authority
to represent themselves as ‘the owners’ of the suit property, etc., can't be
taken into account while deciding the present Ch/s.. Simply because, it
has a very limited scope for consideration. This being the position, there
seems no hurdle to allow this Ch/s. and the subsequent substitution of
the L.Rs. of deceased applicant No. 1 in the cause title of the Ch/s. No.
2222/2019. It is the matter of record that the plaintiff didn’t contest the
present Ch/s.. No harm would be caused to the plaintiff and much less
to the defendants, if this substitution is allowed. Contrarily, I am of the
opinion that in order to adjudicate the Ch/s. No. 2222/2019 in proper
prospect, the proposed amendment is required to be allowed. Hence, I
answered point No.1 in the affirmative and in answer to point No. 2, I
pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). Chamber Summons No. 375/2020 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) only.
(ii). The applicants in Chamber Summons No. 2222/2019 are
called upon to carry out proposed substitution/amendment
in the cause title of the said Chamber Summons, within two
weeks from the passing of this Order, and to file the copy of
amended Chamber Summons simultaneously.
(iii). Chamber Summons No. 375/2020 is, accordingly, disposed
of.
{A.G. Santani}
Mumbai. Ad-hoc Judge,
Dated : 02.12.2022. City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 02.12.2022.
Transcribed on : 02.12.2022.
Signed on : 02.12.2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-002570-2020. .4. CH/S No. 375/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 1974/2012.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
02.12.2022 at 5.45 p.m. Mrs. S.R.Mejari
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri A.G.Santani
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 02.12.2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 02.12.2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on 02.12.2022
-- 4 of 4 --