Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: CHS 127919 IN SU 66019
CNR NO.MHCC01-007133-2019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1279 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.660 OF 2019
Mansoor Ali (Salim) Maqsood Ali ]....Plaintiff.
Versus
1. The Municipal Corporation for ]
Greater Mumbai. ]... Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI A.N. MARE
(C.R. No.11)
DATE : 14th August, 2019.
Mr. Pratap Singh, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. Giri, Advocate for Defendant/ MCGM.
O R D E R
1. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiff has sought amendment
to add the subsequent events.
2. In brief the plaintiff's case is that, after filing the suit for
injunction to restrain the defendant from taking any action pursuant to
the Notice under Section 354A of the MMC Act, defendant No.2 has
passed a Speaking Order dated 30.11.2018 without considering the
documents submitted by the plaintiff with reply dated 3.11.2018. The
order was served upon the plaintiff on 1.2.2018. The Order is
erroneous and therefore, the amendment is necessary in the plaint to
plead passing of such Speaking Order, the ground of its nullity and the
-- 1 of 4 --
: 2 : CHS 127919 IN SU 66019
prayer to challenge the said Speaking Order.
3. Chamber Summons is opposed by the defendant on the ground
that considering the reply a Speaking Order is passed and served on the
plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has prepared a tempered document of
Speaking Order and has filed the Chamber Summons on its basis. The
document relied upon to seek amendment is forged for the purpose of
cheating. It is the subject matter of a forgery and therefore, the Chamber
Summons is liable to be dismissed.
4. Perused. Heard.
5. Perusal of the proceedings reveals that the plaint is presented to
the office of this Court on 28.11.2018. Admittedly, the Speaking Order
is passed on 30.11.2018. Thus, the incident of passing of Speaking
Order is subsequent to presenting the plaint in the office of this Court. It
is settled legal position that the plaintiff is entitled to bring on record
subsequent events which are relevant for the consideration of subject
matter of the suit. The perusal of amendment reveals that it is in relation
to the subsequent event. The amendment, if allowed, will help this Court
in deciding the lis between the parties completely and effectively in one
and the same suit. It will reduce the multiplicity of litigation.
6. The defendant has objected the Chamber Summons on the ground
that the plaintiff has taken out the Chamber Summons on the basis of a
document tampered with by the plaintiff.
7. The objections raised by the defendant cannot be considered while
deciding the application for amendment. If it has to be considered while
-- 2 of 4 --
: 3 : CHS 127919 IN SU 66019
deciding the amendment itself, it may lead to the decision on the merits
of amendment itself. Moreover when the passing of order is not disputed
by the defendant.
8. It is also to be noted that defendant No.2 has already filed an
application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. which can be considered on its
own merit. However, an amendment necessitated due to subsequent
event cannot be denied. Moreover when the genuineness of the
documents tendered by the plaintiff as Speaking order passed by the
defendant No.2 is yet to be contested.
9. Considering the discussion above therefore, I hold that the
Chamber Summons can very well be allowed. Whether the copy of order
affixed to the Chamber Summons is tampered with or not can only be
decided after it is made part of the pleadings. No prejudice will be
caused to the defendants as the opportunity to file written statement and
contest the suit is alive. Hence, the Order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a).
2. The Plaintiff shall carry out the amendment in the plaint and
Notice of Motion as per schedule annexed to the chamber
summons within one week from today. Simultaneously plaintiff
shall also serve the defendant with the copy of amended plaint
and shall submit typed copy of amended plaint before this Court
for the purpose of decree.
3. Defendants are at liberty to file additional reply.
Sd/
(A.N. MARE)
Judge,
14/08/2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated On : 14.08.2019
Transcribed on : 16.08.2019
HHJ Signed on : 19.08.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
: 4 : CHS 127919 IN SU 66019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
19.08.2019 4.10 p.m. V.U. Pawar (H.G.)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI A.N. MARE
(CR 11)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
14.08.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
19.08.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
19.08.2019
-- 4 of 4 --