Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS No.477/2020 ..1.. BCCC Suit No.418/1991
CNR No.MHCC01-003076-2020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.477 OF 2020
IN
BCCC SUIT NO.418/1991
(High Court Suit No.3052/1991)
Arun Narayan Patil and Others. .. Plaintiffs.
Versus
Mrs. Godavari Ganpat Patil (Deceased)
through her legal heirs and others. .. Defendants.
Advocates
Ashish Mishra for plaintiffs.
Hemani Kaushal for defendant No.6(b) to 18.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
Sunil T. Soor.
(COURT No.: 2)
DATED : 13th March, 2020
ORAL ORDER
Heard both parties on chamber summons taken out on behalf of
plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint as per schedule annexed with
Chamber summons. Advocate for defendant no.6(b) to 18 given no
objection to allow chamber summons. Perused the chamber summons,
affidavit in support of it, say of advocate for defendant no.6(b) to 18
and proceedings of the case.
2. Contention of advocate for plaintiffs is that on last date i.e.,
07.02.2020, he came to know that at the time of filing consent terms,
-- 1 of 3 --
CS No.477/2020 ..2.. BCCC Suit No.418/1991
name of defendant no.7(b), 13 and 16(a) are wrongly mentioned in the
plaint and other consequential places due to oversight. Name of
defendant no.7(b) is mentioned as Santosh G. Patil whereas his name is
Deepak Gajanan Patil. Name of defendant no.13 is mentioned as Babu
Rakesh Patil whereas his name is Rajesh Laxman Patil. Name of
defendant no.16(a) is mentioned as Rukmini Sudhakar Patil whereas
her name is Sarita Sudhakar Patil. Hence he prayed for making absolute
chamber summons as per schedule annexed.
3. Advocate for plaintiff filed on record photocopy of Adhar Cards
of defendant no. 7(b), 13 and 16(a). It appears that name of defendant
no.7(b), 13 and 16(a) are mentioned in the plaint as Santosh G. Patil,
Babu Rakesh Patil and Rukmini Sudhakar Patil instead of Deepak
Gajanan Patil, Rajesh Laxman Patil and Sarita Sudhakar Patil
respectively. Matter is already settled between the parties in terms of
consent terms at Exh.5. So also advocate for defendant no. 7(b), 13 and
16(a) given no objection to allow chamber summons. Under the facts
and circumstances, chamber summons can be allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a). Hence, following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.477 of 2020 is allowed and made
absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a).
2. Plaintiff to carry out amendment as per schedule annexed with
chamber summons within 14 days from the date of order.
3. Plaintiff shall file on record amended copy of plaint and serve
the same on defendant no.7(b), 13, 16(a) or their advocate.
4. Accordingly, chamber summons is disposed of.
(Sunil T. Soor)
Judge
Date : 13.03.2020 Gr. Mumbai.
Typed on : 13.03.2020
HHJ signed on : 13.03.2020
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No.477/2020 ..3.. BCCC Suit No.418/1991
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13.03.2020, 5.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. V. N. Rajgole.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. S. T. Soor
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
13.03.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
13.03.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13.03.2020
-- 3 of 3 --