Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 29
28/06/2024
SUM
541/17 @ CS
563/19
CORAM - H.H.J. SHRI. SANGRAM S. SHINDE - (C.R.NO.81)
Adv. Satish S. Thakur for plaintiff is present.
Adv. Raujesh Khandelwal i/b Juris Link Law firm for defendants No.
1 to 3, 5 and 7 is present.
Heard counsel for both sides on Chamber summons No.563/19.
Order below Chamber summons No.563/19
The plaintiff has taken out this chamber summons to carry
out proposed amendment as mentioned in schedule on
01.03.2019. The defendants have filed reply and resisted and
prayed for dismissal.
It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that they have made
M/s Max Publicity Outdoor Advertising Agency and its office
bearer as party to the suit. However, inadvertently numerical
number is not given to the M/s Max Publicity Outdoor
Advertising Agency, as No.1. Further, it is submitted they
have given number 1 to 7 to the office bearers of the said
agency. Therefore, it is necessary to give number serially to
the defendants. Hence, Chamber summons may be allowed.
On the other hand, the defendants No.1 to 7 have submitted
that Chamber summons is not tenable as plaintiff wants to
add M/s Max Publicity Outdoor Advertising Agency as a
party in the plaint. Further, the plaint is bad in law for non-
joinder of necessary party as M/s Max Publicity Outdoor
Advertising Agency is not made party. Further, plaintiff had
taken out chamber summons to carry out amendment in the
plaint on 28.02.2019. However, at that time the plaintiff has
not sought this amendment. Therefore, it is time barred and
Chamber summons cannot be allowed.
Perused Chamber summons, reply and record of the case.
Admittedly, the plaintiff has made M/s Max Publicity
Outdoor Advertising Agency as a party defendant, however,
only thing that numerical number is not given to it. However,
numerical No. 1 to 7 are given to the office bearers of the
said agency. Therefore, there is not substance in the
contention of the defendants that M/s Max Publicity Outdoor
Advertising Agency is not made a party to the suit. Further, it
appears that the plaintiff had taken out Chamber summons
No.2062/18 to carry out the amendment and it was allowed.
Certainly, plaintiff ought to have prayed for proposed
amendment in this Chamber summons at that time.
Therefore, even if propose amendment is allowed, no
-- 1 of 2 --
prejudice will cause to the defendants, even nature of suit
will not change. However, inconvenience cause to the
defendants needs to be consider by imposing cost on the
plaintiff. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-
Order
1. Chamber summons No.563/2019 is allowed, subject to
costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the defendants.
2. The plaintiff is directed to carry out
proposed amendment within 14 days and file amended
copy of the plaint and also supply it to other side.
3. Chamber summons No.563/2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
Matter is adj to 12.07.2024 for compliance.
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --