Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 03.05.2019
SU 733/09
CORAM: H. H. J. SHRI.M.T.ASIM (CR. NO. 02)
Adv. Ranjita Shinde for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Subramanium for Defendant present.
Plaintiff tendered original Ch/s no.930/19 t.o.r.
Defendant filed reply to Ch/s.
Heard arguments of both sides.
K.B. for order.
L.O.
Order below Chamber Summons No.930 of 2019.
Read Chamber summons, affidavit in support of it, reply of defendant no.2.
Heard respective counsel for parties.
Chamber summons is taken out to make correction in the name of defendant no.2 in
cause title as per schedule annexed to the chamber summons.
It is contended that there is a difference in middle name of defendant no.2 in cause
title of the plaint. It should be “Shrinarayan” instead of “Amarnath” in view of
written statement. It is contended that Adv for Plaintiff was not aware about
typographical error in the name of defendant nos.2 in cause title. It is contended that
no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant in any manner, if said
amendment is allowed. Accordingly, Plaintiff has prayed to allow chamber summons.
Defendant no.2 filed reply and opposed chamber summons on the count that at the
stage of judgment, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint as there is no
provision in law to do so at the stage of judgment. There is delay of more than 7
years in taking out chamber summons. Accordingly, it is prayed that chamber
summons be dismissed.
Heard respective counsel for parties.
In plaint cause title, name of defendant no.2 is mentioned as Abhishek Amarnath
Singh. Adv. Mukesh Subramanium filed Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant nos.1
and 2 on 16.04.2009. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendants on
16.03.2012. Defendant no.2 mentioned his name as Abhishek Shrinarayan Singh in
Vakalatnama and also in Written Statement. He participated in the proceeding
throughout. That being so, no prejudice is going to cause to the defendants if
amendment is allowed to correct middle name of defendant no.2 in cause title of the
plaint. As per O6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., application for amendment can be moved at any
stage of proceeding. No doubt it appears that there are latches on the part of Plaintiff
in moving the application but amendment does not relate to the averments in the
plaint. It is only to correct the middle name of defendant no.2.
In my view proposed amendment does not change the nature of suit and when
defendant no.2 all along participated in the proceeding then no prejudice is going to
cause to the defendants if proposed amendment is allowed. However, considering
the conduct of Plaintiff in moving application belatedly, I am of the view to impose
certain costs upon Plaintiff. Hence, pass following order.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.930 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/ to the defendant no.2
within period of one week. Plaintiff is at liberty to deposit costs payable to the
defendant no.2 in the Court.
2. On payment of costs, Plaintiff is directed to carry out amendment as per schedule
annexed to chamber summons within period of two weeks.
3. Accordingly, chamber summons is disposed off.
Adj for compliance to 07.06.2019.
Judge
-- 1 of 1 --