Interim Order 4

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
1 of 6
MHCC010110102025
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 2061 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.241 OF 2019
Krishna Trading Company Plaintiff.
Versus
Rajesh Mehra, Proprietor of Chandni Tex Defendant
Appearances:
Adv. Pranav Rane For plaintiff.
Adv. Dipika Mule For defendant
Adv. Ishita Shah For Proposed Defendant No. 2
CORAM : N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.31)
DATED : 23rd July, 2026
***************************************************************
ORDER
(Delivered on this 23rd day of July, 2026)
This Chamber Summons is taken out by plaintiff seeking
amendment in cause title of the plaint and to add Mrs. Deepa Mehra,
Proprietor of Chandni Tex as defendant No.2. Notice was issued to
proposed defendant No.2. She appeared and filed her reply opposing
the amendment. Even defendant No.2 filed his reply. Rejoinder to reply
was also filed. Heard Adv. Pranav Rane for plaintiff, Adv. Dipika Mule
for defendant No.1 and Adv. Ishita Shah for proposed defendant No.2.
-- 1 of 6 --
Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
2 of 6
2. According to Adv. Rane, it was defendant No.1 Mr. Rajesh
Mehra who represented as proprietor of Chandni Tex while dealing
with her and under the genuine impression, the goods were sold,
supplied and delivered. At no point of time, defendant No.1 disclosed
that it was proposed defendant No.2 who was the proprietor of Chandni
Tex. Even in the written statement, defendant No.1 merely pleaded that
he is not the proprietor, however, purposely failed to disclose as to who
the proprietor was. Adv. Rane further submitted that it was only after
when defendant No.1 filed his evidence affidavit along with it filed
Form No.3CB issued by Chartered Accountant and at that time, the
plaintiff came to know that it is Smt. Deepa Mehra is the proprietor of
M/s. Chandni Tex.
3. Adv. Rane further submitted that the name of the proprietor
was only disclosed when the evidence affidavit was filed and till then
the plaintiff was not aware who the proprietor was, therefore, the
moment she came to know about the true proprietor, chamber
summons came to be filed. Therefore, according to Adv. Rane, the bar
of limitation would not arise and the amendment can be allowed even
at evidence stage. He lastly submitted that, defendant No.1 is liable for
perjury and cheating, as the plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered goods
and an amount of Rs.82,82,669/- is outstanding. Hence, prayed for
allowing the chamber summons.
4. Whereas, Adv. Mule submitted that the chamber summons is
filed after long delay of 6 years and the delay is not satisfactorily
explained. No due diligence is pleaded nor is proved, therefore,
according to her, once the trial has commenced, the amendment cannot
be allowed. She further submitted that in the written statement
defendant No.1 claimed that he is not the proprietor of Chandni Tex
and issue to that effect was already framed by the Court, inspite of it,
-- 2 of 6 --
Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
3 of 6
plaintiff failed to file the chamber summons seeking amendment at the
earliest, therefore, the chamber is not maintainable and thus prayed for
dismissing the same with cost.
5. Whereas Adv. Shah for the proposed defendant No.2
submitted that the proposed amendment is barred by law of limitation
as there is delay of almost 6 years and now the plaintiff cannot implead
proposed defendant No. 2 in the suit. The trial has already commenced
and is at fag end and once the trial has commenced, unless due
diligence is proved, the amendment cannot be allowed. Hence, prayed
for dismissing the Chamber Summons with cost.
6. It is the case of plaintiff that he sold, supplied and delivered
Yans from January 2011 to January 2014 to defendant Mr.Rajesh
Mehra, proprietor of Chandni Tex and raised invoices with Lorry
Receipts. It is also claimed that defendant made part payment which is
mentioned in the Customer Ledger Account of defendant. As the
remaining amount was not paid, suit came to be filed. The further
history of the suit goes to show that though duly served, defendant
failed to appear, hence the suit proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff filed
his evidence affidavit. On 06.03.2020 defendant appeared and on
11.03.2020 filed Notice of Motion No.1120/2020 for setting aside ex-
parte order. It was allowed on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, defendant filed
his written statement and on 03.02.2021 issues were framed.
7. The record further goes to show that the plaintiff filed his
evidence affidavit and cross-examination was completed. As defendant
failed to lead his evidence, his evidence stage was closed. Hence,
defendant filed Notice of Motion No.486/2024 to set aside the said
order. On 23.02.2024, it was allowed. Thereafter, on 05.03.2024,
defendant filed his evidence affidavit along with list of documents in
which the alleged Audit Report Dt.23.08.2013 and printout of official
-- 3 of 6 --
Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
4 of 6
Website of Commercial Taxes Department, Uttar Pradesh was filed
showing Smt. Deepa Mehta as proprietor of M/s. Chandni Tex. It is at
this juncture, plaintiff came to know about the name of real proprietor
of Chandni Tex.
8. During the course of argument, Adv. Mule and Adv. Shah had
taken strong exception on the count of delay in filing the chamber
summons to which Adv. Rane had submitted that the day when the
Audit Report was filed along with evidence affidavit it was on that day,
the plaintiff came to know the name of the real proprietor. I do agree
with the said submission of Adv. Rane, because when the written
statement (Exh.5) was filed, the defendant in para 16 merely claimed
that he is not the proprietor of M/s. Chandni Tex, however, who the
proprietor was not disclosed. Therefore, even though issue to that effect
was framed, however till filing the evidence affidavit on 05.03.2024, the
plaintiff was not aware of the name of the proprietor. If really the
defendant knew who the real proprietor was, he could have pleaded the
same which he failed to do so.
9. In fact, after going through the Audit Report and printout of
official Website of Commercial Taxes Department, Uttar Pradesh, it is
surprising to note that the proprietor of M/s. Chandni Tex is Smt.
Deepa Mehra, who happens to be the wife of defendant Mr. Rajesh
Mehra. If that being so, then what prevented the defendant from
disclosing the said fact in his written statement Exh.5 filed on
04.03.2020 or later on. However, he kept mum. The silence of
defendant speaks volume. Therefore, till filing the evidence affidavit,
the plaintiff was not aware who was the proprietor of M/s. Chandni
Tex.
10. As discussed in the opening paras, the plaintiff had business
dealings with defendant under the bonafide impression that he is the
-- 4 of 6 --
Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
5 of 6
proprietor of M/s. Chandni Tex. The business was going on from 2011
to 2014 and goods worth more than Rs.82 lakhs were supplied through
T.C.I. Freight and the Lorry Receipts are filed on record. Thus, even
though the suit is at the stage of evidence of defendant, still I am of the
view that the bar of proviso of Order VI Rule 17 will not come into
picture because the plaintiff has proved due diligence. In fact, I am of
the view that it was the defendant who had suppressed the fact and
dragged the suit till date by moving various Notice of Motions. There is
no any bar of limitation as the Chamber Summons is filed when the
evidence affidavit of defendant was filed.
11. Therefore, the proposed defendant No.2 is a necessary party to
decide the suit on merit. No any prejudice will be caused to her if she is
impleaded as she will get an opportunity to defend the suit. Therefore, I
am of the view that the proposed amendment is necessary to be
allowed. In the result, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1 The Chamber Summons No.2061/2025 is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) and (b).
2 The plaintiff to carry out amendment within stipulated period.
5 The Chamber Summons No.2061/2025 is disposed of
accordingly.
(N. B. Lavte)
Judge, (C.R.No.31)
Dt.: 23.07.2026 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
Ch/s No. 2061/2025
Krishna Vs. Rajesh
Order
6 of 6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
23.07.2026 2.30 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. N. B. Lavte
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
23.07.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 23.07.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 23.07.2026
-- 6 of 6 --