Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: .1. CH/S No. 720/2018 in
L.C. Suit No. 742/2018.
MHCC010048282018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 720 OF 2018.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 742 OF 2018.
Rumanzubin Khan……………............................. …... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai…............... …... Defendant.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani.
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 09th March, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. S.K. Dubey, the Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mrs. J. V. Mhatre, the Ld. Advocate for the Defendant.
*****
01. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons, U/O. VI
Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for amendment in the plaint.
By filing this Chamber Summons, the plaintiff came with a specific case
that during pendency of this suit, on 02.04.2018, the defendant passed
Speaking Order in respect of the suit premises. He received the same on
05.04.2018. The Order is illegal and hence, it is not binding upon him.
Moreover, on 05.04.2018, Officers of the defendant illegally threatened
to demolish the suit structure. On this backdrop, he also prayed for the
relief of declaration that the said Order is illegal and relief for perpetual
injunction, restraining the defendant from acting upon the same. On the
contrary, the defendant objected this Chamber Summons mainly on the
count that even after due service of notice, the plaintiff did not reply the
-- 1 of 4 --
.2. CH/S No. 720/2018 in
L.C. Suit No. 742/2018.
same and therefore, the Speaking Order came to be passed. Hence, the
Chamber Summons is liable to be rejected. Heard both the sides.
02. Considering the record, the points for determination, along-
with my findings and the reasons therefor, are as under :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
(i). Whether the proposed amendment is
necessary for deciding the real question
in controversy between the parties?...... .. Yes.
(ii). What Order? ...........….......................... .. As per final Order.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
AS TO POINT NO. 1 :
03. By filing this Chamber Summons, the plaintiffs’ only worry
is to bring on record that during pendency of the suit, on 02.04.2018,
the defendant passed the Speaking Order, which is bad in law. Further,
on 05.04.2018, he was allegedly threatened by the Officers of defendant
to demolish the suit structure. As such, he is praying for incorporation
of the said facts along-with grant of additional reliefs of declaration and
perpetual injunction. Needless to say that passing of this Order is not an
event occurred during pendency of this suit i.e. subsequent event. And,
to adjudicate the suit issues effectively, it is necessary to incorporate the
same in the plaint. Obviously, it would be for the plaintiff to establish
his contentions, raised for assailing this Order. Be that as it may, surely,
the proposed amendment is formal in nature and it would not cause any
harm to the defendant. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative
and in answer to point No.2, I pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). The Chamber Summons No. 720/2018 is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
-- 2 of 4 --
.3. CH/S No. 720/2018 in
L.C. Suit No. 742/2018.
(ii). The plaintiff is directed to carry out the proposed
amendment in the body of the plaint, positively
within two weeks from the passing of this Order.
(iii). Costs to follow the event.
(iv). The Chamber Summons No. 720/2018 is disposed
off accordingly.
{A.G. Santani}
Mumbai. Ad-hoc Judge,
Dated : 09.03.2022. City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 09.03.2022.
Transcribed on : 10.03.2022.
Signed on : 10.03.2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
.4. CH/S No. 720/2018 in
L.C. Suit No. 742/2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER”
On 11.03.2022 at 02.30 a.m. Mrs. S.R.Mejari
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) H.H.J. A.G. Santani
C.R. No.11
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
09.03.2022.
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on 10.03.2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11.03.2022.
-- 4 of 4 --