Interim Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 1780/21 in Suit No. 1103/2020. 1 Order.
MHCC010100342021
Presented on : 03-12-2021
Registered on : 03-12-2021
Decided on : 07-07-2023
Duration : 1 years, 7 months, 4 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1780 OF 2021
IN
SUIT NO. 1103 OF 2020
Drishti Hospitality Company Pvt. Ltd. )...Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Sharad Mehta and others )...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.D.KULKARNI.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 7th JULY, 2023.
Shri Sandeep Rebari alongwith Archi Gala, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Siddhant Singh h/f Shri Bipin Joshi, Advocate for defendant.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has taken out the chamber summons for
amendment in the pleading.
2. Perused chamber summons, affidavit in support of it, say
filed by the defendant. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties.
Heard learned advocate for the plaintiff and defendant at length.
3. The contention of the plaintiff that the proposed
-- 1 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1780/21 in Suit No. 1103/2020. 2 Order.
amendment is a clarification in respect of the relief prayed by the
plaintiff. If the proposed amendment is allowed, nature of the suit will
not be changed. The consequential relief prayed by the plaintiff doesn't
change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff seek rectification of the
document executed in between the defendant no.1 and 2. Thus, it is a
mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, there is no hurdle of
Limitation Act in allowing amendment.
4. The defendant no.1 and 2 opposed the chamber summons
on a ground that, in the entire application not a single reason
mentioned for the delay caused in filing chamber summons. The nature
of amendment is beyond the period of limitation. The relief prayed by
the plaintiff by way of proposed amendment change the nature of the
suit.
5. I have gone through the proposed amendment. It reveals
that the plaintiff seek rectification of the document took place in
between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 could
not sold the property which he has not received from his previous
owner. Therefore, plaintiff seeks rectification of document. In my
opinion the document executed is inter se between the defendants. So
about the limitation it is a mixed question of law and facts.
6. I have gone through the nature of amendment. It is
certainly clarification in the pleading. So nature of the suit will not be
changed by the proposed amendment. The basic principle of the
amendment is to resolve all the dispute in between the parties in one
litigation so as to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation. So considering
all above aspects, I am of the opinion that by the proposed amendment
-- 2 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1780/21 in Suit No. 1103/2020. 3 Order.
nature of the suit will not be changed. No hardship will be caused to the
defendant as he will get the right to resist the amendment. In the suit,
still issues were not framed. Thus, considering all above aspects, I pass
the following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 1780/2021 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a).
2. The plaintiffs are directed to carry out amendment in the plaint
on or before the next date and supply amended copies to the parties.
3. Ch/s No. 1780/2021 is disposed off.
(S.D.KULKARNI)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Date : 07/07/2023. Mumbai.
1. Dictated online on : 07/07/2023.
2. Checked on : 11/07/2023.
3. Signed on : 12/07/2023.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 3 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1780/21 in Suit No. 1103/2020. 4 Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
12/07/2023. 6.00 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri S.D.Kulkarni.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 07/07/2023.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/07/2023.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/07/2023.
-- 4 of 4 --