Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010030852020
Presented on : 12-03-2020
Registered on : 12-03-2020
Decided on : 06-04-2021
Duration : 1 years, 0 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF
COURT 1 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE AT Mumbai,Mumbai
Presided Over by HHJ SHRI. M. S. AZMI
CHAMBER SUMMONS/100472/2020
IN
SUIT NO.2213 OF 2018
Mr.Suresh Sundar Kamble and another ..Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr.Subhash Sundar Kamble and Anr. ..Defendants
Ld. advocate Tripathi for plaintiffs
Ld. advocate Dubey for defendants
ORAL ORDER
(Delivered on 06-04-2021)
1. By this chamber summons the plaintiffs wish to amend the
plaint as per the schedule annexed.
2. Heard.
3. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs is that the
suit was filed in urgency and therefore the plaintiff was unable to
-- 1 of 4 --
2
annexe the documents to the plaint which are vital documents for
proper adjudication and deciding the real controversy involved in the
matter. The plaintiff’s contention is that plaintiff no.1 is owner of
the suit land and he has purchased the suit land by virtue of two
agreements for sale dated 5/12/1997 for area admeasuring 3000 sq.
feet and remaining 3000 sq. Feet by agreement dated 11/12/1997.
The plaintiff’s son was carrying on the business. The complaint was
filed by daughter of plaintiff no.1 against defendant no.1, Kiran
Kamble, Shreyash Kamble, Rahul Badarge, Siddharth Badarge,
Shalan Kamble, Radha Kamble, Nira Kamble and Shobha Kamble. CA
of Smt. Tara Swarup i.e. Ramavadh Yadav executed an affidavit in
favour of plaintiff no.1 stating that the aforesaid suit premises and
the entire property lying being and situated at S. No.21/2, CTS
No.49 part, village Tungwa, Kurla, admeasuring 7744 sq. Meters.
Therefore plaintiffs seek liberty to amend the same.
4. The Chamber summons is opposed by the defendants. The
proposed amendment chabnges the nature of the suit. Ram Awadh
Yadav has no right to sell the property. The affidavits of Haider Ali
Shaikh and Mazar Khan have been taken under misrepresentation.
False complaints have been filed by Sneha Kamble. The plaintiffs are
not entitled to take the ground of haste and urgency as alleged.
5. In the matter the issues have not been framed. The bar under
the proviso under order 6 rule 17 of the CPC will not come into
effect to deny the relief prayed in the Chamber summons. The
plaintiffs wish to rely upon the documents in order to establish their
case. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that suit was filed in haste
and therefore these documents are not annexed with the plaint. It
will not be appropriate to deny the prayer for amendment when the
-- 2 of 4 --
3
trial has not been commenced. Nothing is pointed out from the side
of the defendants whether the proposed amendment is prejudicial to
their interest. The proposed amendment is nothing but elaboration
of the facts pleaded. The proposed amendment will not change the
nature of the suit and it is not malafide. The proposed amendment
does not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Hence, it is
expedient to pass following order:-
ORDER
1. Ch/sum No.472/20 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a) and (b).
2. Plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment in the
plaint on or before the next date.
3. After the amendment of the plaint, plaintiff to supply
the amended copy of the plaint to the defendant and
one copy on record.
4. Costs in the cause.
(M.SALMAN AZMI)
Judge,
Date: 06.04.2021 City Civil Court, Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 06/04/2021
Transcribed on : 19/04/2021
Signed on : 23/04/2021
-- 3 of 4 --
4
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
23/04/2021 at 2.30 pm.
Mrs.T.C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.1
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
06/04/2021
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 23/04/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 23/04/2021
-- 4 of 4 --