Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 C/S. No.981/18 (L.C.S. No.1121/11)
MHCC010071532018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS No.981 OF 2018
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT No.1121/2011
Navinchandra s/o. Khiyashi Shah … Plaintiff
- Versus -
The Commissioner
& Ors. ... Defendants
Appearance :-
Mr. J. J. Thakkar, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mrs. Honmane, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 3.
Mr. Peje h/f. Mr. Mestry, Advocate for defendants No.4, 5A and B.
CORAM : S. H. SALUNKHE,
AD-HOC JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT,
COURT ROOM NO.4.
DATED : 16/11/2024.
O R D E R
.
. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for
amendment in the plaint under Order-VI Rule-17 of The Code of Civil
Procedure (in short the C. P. C.).
2] It is contended that the plaintiff is the tenant of suit
structure and suit is filed to challenge notice under Section 351 of The
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (in short the M. M. C. Act). The
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C/S. No.981/18 (L.C.S. No.1121/11)
plaintiff is seeking permission to incorporate contentions in the plaint as
per Exhibit-C. It is submitted that proposed amendment is necessary for
deciding issue involved in suit.
3] The defendants No.4, 5/A and B have opposed Chamber
Summons by filing reply dated 25/8/2023. It is stated that the proposed
amendment is nothing but observations in the judgment of the superior
Court and said cannot be a part of the pleading. The proposed
amendment is not necessary for deciding the issue involved in this suit,
therefore, Chamber Summons deserves to be rejected.
4] Plaintiff Nitin Shah filed rejoinder affidavit dated
27/9/2023.
5] Heard both sides. Learned advocates made submissions as
per the pleadings.
6] Order-VI Rule-17 of the C. P. C. provides that the Court may,
at any stage of the proceeding allow the party to amend its pleading as
may be just for complete and effective adjudication of controversy
between the parties. The proviso to Order-VI Rule-17 of the C. P. C.
provides that application for amendment shall not be allowed after
commencement of trial unless the plaintiff has shown due diligence.
The trial has not been commenced yet. Therefore, the proviso of Order-
VI Rule-17 of the C. P. C. is not applicable to the present case. The
purpose and object of Order-VI Rule-17 of the C. P. C. is to avoid
multiplicity of proceeding and to set arrest controversy in the same suit.
It is also well settled that the Court has to be liberal in permitting
amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to other
side and nature of suit is not likely to be changed as a result of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C/S. No.981/18 (L.C.S. No.1121/11)
amendment. By way of proposed amendment the plaintiff are seeking to
incorporate contentions in respect of the observations of the Hon'ble
High Court in respect of unauthorized construction on private land.
Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that already in other suits similar
amendment has been allowed by the Court. On perusal of the proposed
amendment it appears that the proposed amendment is just and
satisfactory for determining the dispute involved in suit. There is no
likely to change nature of suit as such no prejudice would be caused to
other side.
7] Resultantly, Chamber Summons deserves to be allowed.
Hence the order :-
O R D E R
1] Chamber Summons is hereby made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a).
2] The plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment and shall serve
copy of amended plaint to other side.
Date : 16/11/2024. ( S. H. SALUNKHE )
Ad-hoc Judge City Civil Court,
Court Room No.4, Gr. Mumbai.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C/S. No.981/18 (L.C.S. No.1121/11)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
02/12/2024 03:45 p.m. V. V. Kulkarni
NAME OF STENOGRAPHERUPLOAD DATE TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H. H. Judge Shri. S. H. Salunkhe,
Court Room No. 4.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 16/11/2024
ORDER Tyed on 30/11/2024
ORDER signed by P. O. on 02/12/2024
ORDER uploaded on 02/12/2024
-- 4 of 4 --