Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 38918 in SU 980099 : 1 : Dt. 07.04.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 389 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 9800 OF 1999
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 6569 OF 1999)
Smt. Cyrilla G. Reveredo ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Nimesh Enterprises
2. Balchandra Laxman Mhatre
3. Kamlakar Govind Kini
4. Ms. Antonette R. Dias
5. Mr. Ancy Dias
6. Mr. Mincy Dias
7. Ms. Fiona Dias
8. Mr. Ferddy Dias …Defendants
Adv. Ms. Kokila Kalra for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Mhatre for Defendant nos. 1 and 2 present.
Adv. Ms. Nihita Bajwa for defendant nos. 4, 5,
7 and 8 present.
CORAM : HHJ DR (SMT.) SRISHTY NEELKANTH
(C.R. NO.02)
DATED : 7th APRIL, 2018
ORDER
This Chamber Summons has been filed by the Plaintiff for
amendment in the Plaint and other proceedings as per the Schedule
annexed with the Chamber Summons.
2. The learned advocate of the plaintiff submitted that the
defendant no. 6 was the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and
thus his name appearing as defendant no. 6 needs to be deleted. She
further submitted that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with
the defendant but the defendant had not given possession of the
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 38918 in SU 980099 : 2 : Dt. 07.04.2018
property to the plaintiff as per the agreement. The plaintiff still had
hold over her land. The earlier advocate of the plaintiff had not taken
necessary steps for filing the present Chamber Summons and thus there
was a delay in filing the same. Hence, prayed that Chamber Summons
be allowed.
3. The learned advocate of defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted
that by an agreement dated 15.07.1987, the property had been
developed and handed over to the predecessors. The defendant had
even relied upon the Passbook to show that the entire amount had been
paid to the plaintiff. She had enjoyed the facility on the basis of the
agreement and now she wished to declare the agreement as null and
void. He further submitted that present Chamber Summons was filed at
a very belated stage and thus should not be allowed and deserved to be
dismissed.
4. The advocate of defendant nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 did not object
to the Chamber Summons.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the roznama and documents on
record.
6. On perusing the affidavit annexed to the Chamber
Summons, it is seen that, the averments made therein by the plaintiff
are very vague and no valid ground for the delay in filing the Chamber
Summons has been putforth. It is only at the time of arguments when
the delay is pointed out by the advocate of defendant, the advocate of
plaintiff submits that the delay is because of the inadvertence of the
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 38918 in SU 980099 : 3 : Dt. 07.04.2018
earlier advocate of the plaintiff. This is a suit of the year 1999. The
defendants have filed their evidence. The plaintiff's evidence has
already been closed. On perusing the Plaint it is seen that, the plaintiff
has filed this suit for Specific Performance of the agreement dated
15.07.1987 and for damages as an alternative prayer, accordingly the
issues have been well framed by my learned predecessor. Today, by the
present Chamber Summons the plaintiff wants to add the prayer that
the agreement dated 15.07.1987 be declared null and void on account
of non performance of contract by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3.
7. Considering the fact that the present Chamber Summons
has been moved at a very belated stage and no substantial explanation
for the delay has been brought forth, I am of the opinion that the
Chamber Summons for the above stated amendment can not be
allowed. Further considering the oral submissions made by the advocate
of plaintiff that the defendant no. 6 is the Power of Attorney holder of
the plaintiff, the plaintiff can be allowed to delete the name of
defendant no. 6. Hence, the following Order is passed :
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 389 of 2018 is partly
allowed only with respect to deletion of defendant no. 6 as
prayed for in the Chamber Summons.
(Dr. Srishty Neelkanth)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 07.04.2018.
Transcribed on : 12.04.2018.
Signed on : 13.04.2018.
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 38918 in SU 980099 : 4 : Dt. 07.04.2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13.04.2018 at 5.50 p.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
DR(SMT) SRISHTY NEELKANTH (C.R.
No.02)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
07.04.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
13.04.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13.04.2018
-- 4 of 4 --