Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01002754201807 Sept 2018
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 07 Sept 2018 · CNR MHCC010027542018

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.386 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.3042 OF 2012
CANARA BANK ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Alokkumar Tony Gupta & ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Ms.Hemangi Kamdar for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr.Deshpande for defendant Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 7th September,2018
ORDER
By way of this chamber summons plaintiff prayed for making
amendment in the plaint as per schedule to add defendant No.4 in the
title clause of plaint.
2. In supporting affidavit Mr.Manish, the Manager of plaintiff, they
submitted that, they have filed this suit against defendants for recovery
of amount. However, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the partners of
M/s M.Series and they are maintaining the Current Account with
plaintiff branch bearing account No.2677201000727 in the name and
style as 'M/s. M. Series'. Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the
amount of Rs.2,29,252/ from the defendants as per claim. Therefore,
it is necessary to add this M/s M. Series as party defendant in the title
clause of plaint for proper adjudication of the matter. The proposed
MHCC01-002754-2018
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 386/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.3042/2012
amendment will not change the nature of suit nor cause prejudice to
the defendants. Therefore, they prayed that, as there is no change in
the nature of suit and presence of defendant No.4 as per schedule is
necessary, the chamber summons be made absolute.
3. None appeared for defendants to oppose the chamber summons
in respect of service of chamber summons. Therefore, question of
rebuttal on the part of defendant does not arise.
4. It is admitted fact that defendants are partners of M/s M. Series.
Therefore, M/s M. Series is the proposed defendant and its presence is
necessary for proper and effectual adjudication of the matter. The
presence of partnership firm on record will definitely necessary to
determine the real question of controversies involved between the
parties. Their presence will helpful to decide the matter. The proposed
amendment will not change the nature of the suit. The status of the
defendant No.4 is a partnership firm, who is represented by defendant
Nos.1 to 3, who are already on record. They are having an opportunity
to put forth their defence whatever available to them. Therefore,
presence of proposed defendant is necessary for proper adjudication of
the matter and settle all the questions involved between the parties in
this suit. The question of limitation will not arise, so as commencement
of trial. Due diligence is shown by plaintiff. As soon as plaintiff came to
know that, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are partners of M/s M. Series, the
proposed defendant No.4, whose current account in the plaintiffs
branch and from whom they have to recover Rs.2,29,252/; they moved
this chamber summons. Therefore, it is necessary to make the chamber
summons absolute. In the circumstances parties are directed to bear
their ow costs and hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 386/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.3042/2012
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.386 of 2018 in Suit No.3042 of
2012 is made absolute.
2. Plaintiff to carry out the amendments as per schedule
attached to the chamber summons within 14 days from
the date of this order.
3. After amendment, amended copy of plaint along with
compilation of documents be served upon newly added
defendant No.4 by writ of summons.
4. Service affidavit be placed on record to that effect.
5. No order as to costs.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.:07/09/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 07.09.2018
Transcribed on : 10.09.2018
Signed on : 10.09.2018
kps/
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 386/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.3042/2012
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
10.09.2018 at 1.29 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 07.09.2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 10.09.2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 10.09.2018
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.