Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
1 Date :30.11.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1348 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 1647 OF 2017
(CNR NO.MHCC010075482019 )
Weini Liang .. Plaintiff
Versus
Wei Cheng Liang & Ors. .. Defendants
And
M/s. L. Young & Company .. Respondent
Appearances :
Ld. Adv.Haresh Mansukhani for plaintiff present.
Ld. Adv.Reshant Shah for defendant no.1 present.
Ld. Adv.S.A.Mhadgul for defendant present.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 30.11.2019
ORDER
1. Plaintiff filed instant Chamber Summons for carrying out
necessary amendment in the plaint for correcting the serial
numbers of defendants in para no. 10, 20 and 21 of the plaint as
well as to implead the firm Ms. L. Young & Company as a
defendant.
-- 1 of 6 --
CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
2 Date :30.11.2019
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that he has filed the suit
against the defendants praying for dissolution of firm M/s. L.
Young & Company and seeking his share of 6.66 % in the said
firm.
3. It is contended by the plaintiff that M/s. L. Young &
Company is defunct since the year 1993. However the affairs of
the firm have not been formally would up. The valuable property
of the said firm has fallen into wrong hands and the same is
illegally being used by defendant no. 7 to the exclusion of the
plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 6. However, due to inadvertence,
the said firm M/s. L. Young & Company has not been formally
impleaded as a defendant in the above suit, although all the
partners thereof and the persons entitled to rights therein have
been duly impleaded. Therefore, it is contended by the plaintiff
that in interest of justice, equity and good conscience, he may be
allowed to carry out the aforesaid amendment. It is further
contended by the plaintiff that inadvertently in para no. 10 and 21,
he has written the defendant no. 7 instead of defendant no. 2. The
aforesaid mistake is typographical mistake and he should be
allowed to carry out necessary amendment in he plaint.
4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that similarly in para
no. 20 of the plaint the defendant no. 1 has been erroneously
described as defendant no. 2. It is merely a typographical error.
-- 2 of 6 --
CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
3 Date :30.11.2019
Therefore, he may be allowed to carry out necessary amendment
by substituting the word “Defendant no. 1” instead of defendant
no. 2. Therefore, plaintiff prayed for allowing the Chamber
Summons.
5. The Chamber Summons is opposed by defendant no. 1 by
filing say. It is contended by the defendant no. 1 that plaintiff
filed instant Chamber Summons after lapse of 90 days, that too
after 2 years of filing of the suit. Plaintiffs failed to give any
sufficient and plausible reasons as to why the firm name was not
made party to the proceeding. Hence, defendant no. 1 prayed for
dismissal of the Chamber Summons.
6. I have heard both the sides. Perused plaint, Chamber
Summons as well as reply. Plaintiff has filed instant suit alleging
the defendant no. 1 to 6 are the partners of M/s. L. Young &
Company. The defendant no. 1 illegally without consent of the
other partners have transferred the business of the firm to the
defendant no. 7. Therefore, the plaintiffs seeking relief of
dissolution of firm M/s. L. Young & Company. In my view, looking
to the relief claimed by the plaintiff, although he has sought the
main relief for the dissolution of the firm M/s. L. Young &
Company but inadvertently he has not added the said company as
a defendant. In my view, if the plaintiff is allowed to add the firm
as a defendant company, no prejudice would cause either to
defendant no. 1 or to defendant no. 7, as they are the only
contesting defendants. Moreover, bythe present amendment the
-- 3 of 6 --
CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
4 Date :30.11.2019
nature of suit is not changed. In my view, the aforesaid
amendment is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties.
Hence, the afroesaid amendment needs to be allowed.
7. Moreover, the plaintiff also seeking amendment in plaint in
para no. 10 and 21 in the name of defendant. It appears that the
plaintiff inadvertently mentioned defendant no. 2 instead of
defendant no. 7 in para no. 10 and 21. I have gone through with
the entire context and content of the said para, which revealed to
me that the plaintiff wanted to make a assertion in respect of
defendant no. 7 but inadvertently it is written as defendant no. 2.
Therefore, in my view, it is a typographical error which needs to
be allowed to correct the same.
8. It is further contended by the plaintiff that in para no. 20 of
the plaint he has inadvertently written defendant no. 2 instead of
defendant no. 1. I have also perused the para no. 20 of the plaint,
after going through the entire content of the plaint, it appears that
the plaintiff alleged against the defendant no. 1. The aforesaid
para is with reference to the defendant no. 1. Therefore, in my
view, it is a typographical error which needs to allowed to be
corrected. In view of the above discussion, in my view, the
Chamber Summons needs to be allowed. Thus, I proceed to pass
the following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No. 1348 of 2019 is hereby allowed.
2. Plaintiff to carryout amendment as per schedule within 14
-- 4 of 6 --
CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
5 Date :30.11.2019
days from the date of order.
3. Plaintiff to bear cost of present Chamber Summons.
4. Chamber Summons No. 1348 of 2019 is hereby disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 30.11.2019 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 30.11.2019
Typed on : 30.11.2019
Draft Submitted on : 30.11.2019
Checked on : 02.12.2019
Signed on : 02.12.2019
-- 5 of 6 --
CS 1348-2019 in S.C. Suit no. 1647-17
6 Date :30.11.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
02/12/2019 at 4.00 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
30/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
02/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 02/12/2019
-- 6 of 6 --