Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 972-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 3215-2018 Date : 22.09.2021
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.972 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.3215 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010051072019)
Mr. Haresh Murji Patel,
Aged about __years, Of Bombay, adult, Indian
Inhabitant, residing at Flat No. 202, Shree Sai
Shraddha CHS Ltd., 114, Bhavani Shankar
Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 and also
having address at Room No. 2 ground floor,
Gokhale Road (South) Sarvodaya Trust
Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028
..... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Lalit Premji Patel
Of Bombay, adult, aged about___years
Residing at 601/A, Chitrakoot CHs., Kashinath,
Dhuru Road, Agar Bazar, Dadar (W),
Mumbai 400 028.
And ..... Defendant
Mrs. Nayna Jakubhai Patel
Residing at Sarvodaya Trust Building No. 1
87/A, Gokhale Road, Dadar, Mumbai28. ..... Respondent
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Singh h/f Adv. Saraogi for the plaintiff.
Adv. Hiren Mehta i/b Mukesh Aiya for the defendants.
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 972-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 3215-2018 Date : 22.09.2021
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 3
Date : 22.09.2021
ORDER
1. The plaintiff filed instant chamber summons seeking
permission to carry out necessary amendment as per schedule.
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that, he has filed suit for
possession of shop No.2. The defendant filed his written statement
wherein he has stated that the proposed respondent
No. 2 is also in possession of the suit shop. Therefore, the plaintiff
contended that, the proposed respondent no. 2 needs to be added
as defendant and he may be permitted to carry out necessary
amendment to that effect.
3. The chamber summons is opposed by the defendant by
filing say. Heard both the sides, perused chamber summons, reply
and pleadings in the plaint.
4. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant without his
knowledge trespassed into his shop. Therefore, he is seeking
removal of defendant from the suit shop and possession thereof.
The defendant in his written statement contended that he is
carrying on business from the suit shop alongwith Smt. Nayana
Patel, the widow of deceased brother. Thus, I am of the view that
the proposed amendment do not change the nature of the suit.
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 972-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 3215-2018 Date : 22.09.2021
Looking to the pleadings of the plaintiff the proposed defendant is
also necessary party. Thus, I am of the view chamber summons
needs to be allowed. Thus, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 972 of 2019 is hereby allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment as
per schedule within a period of 14 days from the
date of order;
3. Plaintiff to bear cost of chamber summons.
4. Chamber Summons No. 972 of 2019 is disposed of.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 22.09.2021 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 22.09.2021
Typed on : 22.09.2021
Signed on : 23.09.2021
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 972-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 3215-2018 Date : 22.09.2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24.09.2021 at 11.00 am. (Mrs. S.R.Mejari)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.3)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
22.09.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
23.09.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24.09.2021
-- 4 of 4 --