Final Order 2

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: ORDER ..1..
MHCC010037822019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.742 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.4638 OF 2009
Satish Ramanna Sheety. ...Plaintiff.
Vs.
Sita Ramanna Shetty And Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearance
Adv. Harish Pawar for plaintiff.
Adv.Hardik Desai for defendant no. 1, 3 and 4.
Adv. G. K. Tripathi for defendant no. 2.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
R.R.Patare
COURT NO.2
DATED : 12th January, 2023
ORAL ORDER
Perused averments. Heard both advocates. This chamber
summons is taken out by the defendants for correction of market
value of suit properties. The plaintiff also seek permission to file
additional evidence affidavit. The defendants filed reply and
oppose the chamber summons. The learned advocate appearing for
plaintiff would submit that it was realized to the plaintiff that suit
properties are not valued as per market value and therefore he
seek to correct the valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction
and for payment of Court fees. On the other hand, the learned
-- 1 of 5 --
ORDER ..2..
advocate appearing for defendants would submit that the plaintiff
cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after commencement of
the trial. He would further submit that amendment is not bonafide.
He further made reference to the affidavit filed in support of
chamber summons and pointed out that the plaintiff has not
pointed out the reason why he did not seek permission to correct
valuation at initial stage. He submit that chamber summons cannot
be allowed. In support of his argument he relied on the Judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Revanna V/s.
Anjanamma (dead) by LR’s and others passed in Civil Appeal No.
1669 of 2019 @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.19188 of 2010 and another and
in the case of Barkatali Abdul Razzak Kazi V/s. Noorjahan Gafoor
Shijwalkar in Writ Petition No.171/2014 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay. The learned advocate also relied on the
case of R.N. Gosain V/s. Yashpal Dhir reported in (1992) 4 SCC
683. I have read the case laws cited supra.
2. Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C. empowers Court to grant
permission to amend pleadings of the parties. It is settled that
Court may permit party to the suit to alternate or amend pleading
at any stage of the suit on such terms as may be just and proper.
However the amendment sought must be necessary for the
purpose of determining the issues between the parties.
3. According to plaintiff market values of suit property is 4
Crores and that the value of property shown in the plaint is
incorrect. The present suit is filed for partition and separate
-- 2 of 5 --
ORDER ..3..
possession. The suit properties are described at Exh.D and D-1.
The defendants in their written statement also contended that the
plaintiff did not give correct market value of suit property. It is
specifically contended that market value is more than 1 crore.
Therefore the case of plaintiff that market value mentioned in the
suit is incorrect seems to be correct.
4. The amendment /correction in the market value of suit
property is necessary to determine the controversy between the
party. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants in case
plaintiff is permitted to correct the market value of suit property.
The amendment /correction sought by the plaintiff is necessary
and therefore, chamber summons deserves to be allowed. No
doubt chamber summons is taken out after framing of issues,
however the defendants can be compensated for the delay caused
by the plaintiff. Facts of the present case and facts in the case law
cited supra are not identical. The proposed amendment will not
change the nature of suit. The proposed amendment if allowed
would change the valuation of suit and nothing more. In such
circumstances, the case law cited supra by the learned advocate on
behalf of defendants will not come to their help. In such
circumstances, following order is passed.
ORDER
1) Chamber Summons No. 742 of 2019 is hereby allowed
subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to defendants within
period of 14 days from today.
-- 3 of 5 --
ORDER ..4..
2) The plaintiff is allowed to correct the valuation of the suit
and further permitted to pay Court fees as per rules.
(R.R.Patare)
Judge
City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai
Date : 12.01.2023
Typed on : 12.01.2023
HHJ signed on : 12.01.2023
-- 4 of 5 --
ORDER ..5..
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
DATED 12.01.2023 , 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. R.R.Patare
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
12.01.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
12.01.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12.01.2023
-- 5 of 5 --