Skip to main content
Court Order

Interim Order 1

CNR MHCC01004185202019 Jul 2022
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Interim Order 1 · 19 Jul 2022 · CNR MHCC010041852020

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 774/21 in S.C.Suit No. 1343/2020. 1 Order.
MHCC010038382021
Presented on : 03-05-2021
Registered on : 03-05-2021
Decided on : 19-07-2022
Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 16 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 774 OF 2021
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 1343 OF 2020
Ashok Appa Manchekar )...Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Suryakant Shantaram Mohire )
and others )...Defendants
And
Mr. Vinayak Govind Lahot )...Respondent
Prop. Def No.4
And
Uma Ashok Manchekar and one )...Respondents
Prop. Plaintiff No.2 & 3
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R.R.BHAGWAT.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 19th JULY, 2022.
Shri Deepak Pandey, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Miss Ankita Manjrekar, Advocate for defendants no.1 and 3.
-- 1 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 774/21 in S.C.Suit No. 1343/2020. 2 Order.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has taken out the chamber summons for
amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Perused
chamber summons and affidavit in reply filed by defendants no.1 and 3.
Heard learned counsel Deepak Pandey for the plaintiff and learned
counsel Ankita Manjrekar for defendants no.1 and 3.
2. On perusal of contents in affidavit in support, it appears
that defendants no.1 to 3 have sold the suit premises to proposed
defendant no.4 as per contents in affidavit dated 01/02/2020. The
plaintiff had paid consideration of Rs.45,00,000/ to defendants no.1 to
3 for purchasing the suit premises. The plaintiff has also skipped to
mention names of proposed plaintiff no.2 and 3 in the plaint. The
defendants opposed the chamber summons on the ground that the
plaintiff has not explained the reasons for adding two more plaintiffs in
the plaint. It is clear from rival contentions that subsequent
development in the form of sale of the suit premises to proposed
defendant no.4 by defendants no.1 to 3 made the plaintiff to seek
amendment in the plaint. Addition of two more plaintiffs would not
cause prejudice to the defendants. Considering all these aspects, I pass
the following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 774/2021 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a).
2. The plaintiff shall carry out amendment in the plaint
within 15 days from the date of this order.
3. The plaintiff shall also place on record copy of the amended
plaint on or before the next date of hearing.
-- 2 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 774/21 in S.C.Suit No. 1343/2020. 3 Order.
4. The proceeding of Ch/s No. 774/2021 is closed.
(R.R.BHAGWAT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Date : 19/07/2022. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 19/07/2022.
2. Transcribed on : 19/07/2022.
3. Signed on : 19/07/2022.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
20/07/2022. 11.12 a.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri R.R.Bhagwat.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 19/07/2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 19/07/2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 20/07/2022.
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.