Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: MHCC010088292019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1559 OF 2019
IN
S. C. SUIT NO.1414 OF 2017
Gulfam Ahmed Samani … PLAINTIFF
Versus
The Kurla Dawoodi Bohra Masjid & Kabristan Trust
and others
… DEFENDANTS
APPEARANCES:
Mr. G.B. Naik, Advocate for plaintiff.
Ms. Prasanna Pawar i/b Shamim and Co. Advocate for defendant Nos.1,
3, 4 and 5.
Ms. Aishwarya Sawant H/F Mr. Rajeev Matkar, Advocate for defendant
Nos.6 to 10.
CORAM: V. M. SUNDALE, ADHOC JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.02
DATED: 14th JANUARY, 2026
ORDER
01. The plaintiff has taken out the present Chamber Summons
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
amendment of the plaint.
-- 1 of 7 --
(2)
02. Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that he has
instituted the present suit seeking various reliefs as more particularly
set out in the plaint. At the initial stage, the suit was moved for ad-
interim reliefs restraining the original defendants from taking forcible
possession of, and/or creating third-party rights in respect of, the suit
premises. During the hearing of interim reliefs, the defendants appeared
before the Court and made a statement that they would not create any
third-party rights. On the basis of the said statement, this Court was
pleased to pass an order dated 15.07.2017, directing the parties to
maintain status quo. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was in
possession of the entire shopping complex, including the suit premises.
However, during the pendency of the suit and in blatant violation of the
order of status quo, the defendants allegedly broke open the locks of the
gate leading to the upper floors and forcibly took possession of the suit
premises. Upon learning of the said incident, the plaintiff immediately
approached Kurla Police Station and lodged a complaint, which came to
be registered as FIR No. 341 of 2017. It is further stated that during the
same period, the plaintiff received threatening calls from international
numbers, which were also reported to the police and an NC was
registered.
03. The plaintiff thereafter issued legal notices to the original
defendants narrating the aforesaid incidents and calling upon them to
restore possession of the suit premises. As there was no response from
the defendants, the plaintiff seeks, by way of the present proposed
amendment, to incorporate pleadings and reliefs arising out of the
subsequent events that occurred during the pendency of the suit. On
these grounds, the plaintiff has prayed for allowing Chamber Summons.
-- 2 of 7 --
Order (3) Chamber Summons No.1559/2019 In
S.C. Suit No.1414/2017
04. Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 have opposed the Chamber
Summons by filing their reply. They have denied all adverse allegations
made by the plaintiff and contended that the Chamber Summons is not
maintainable and is barred by limitation. It is further contended that
there is gross and unexplained delay in seeking the amendment and
that the plaintiff has failed to assign any cogent or prudent reasons for
not seeking such amendment at an earlier stage. According to these
defendants, the proposed amendment is vague, ambiguous, based on
bald and reckless allegations, and amounts to abuse of the process of
law. Hence, rejection of the Chamber Summons is sought.
05. Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 have also opposed the Chamber
Summons by filing a separate reply. They have denied the allegations
and contended that by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff is
effectively converting the present suit into one under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, without disclosing the date of possession or
the date of alleged dispossession. It is contended that permitting such
amendment would amount to entertaining a suit under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 beyond the prescribed period of limitation,
which is impermissible in law. It is further contended that the proposed
pleadings are mutually inconsistent and that no explanation has been
offered as to why such pleadings were not incorporated at the time of
filing the suit. On these grounds also, rejection of the Chamber
Summons is prayed for.
06. I have heard the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, the
learned Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, as well as the
-- 3 of 7 --
(4)
learned Advocate for Defendant Nos. 6 to 10. I have also carefully
perused the Chamber Summons, the replies filed thereto, and the
record of the case.
07. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise
for my determination:
POINTS FINDINGS
01. Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for
allowing the proposed amendment under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC?
Yes
02. What order? As per final
order
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1 AND 2:
08. The plaintiff seeks amendment of the plaint on the ground
that certain material events, namely alleged forcible dispossession in
violation of the status quo order dated 15.07.2017, occurred during the
pendency of the suit. The proposed amendment is thus founded on
subsequent events, which were not in existence at the time of institution
of the suit. The principal objections raised by the defendants relate to
limitation, delay, maintainability, and the alleged nature of the reliefs
sought. However, it is well settled that at the stage of considering an
application for amendment, the Court is not required to adjudicate
upon the merits or correctness of the proposed pleadings. The
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations and the entitlement of the
-- 4 of 7 --
Order (5) Chamber Summons No.1559/2019 In
S.C. Suit No.1414/2017
plaintiff to the reliefs sought are matters to be determined at trial. The
defendants will have full liberty to file their additional written
statements and raise all permissible defences in accordance with law.
09. The record prima facie indicates that the amendment
sought is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties. The trial in the present suit is yet to commence.
Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to allow amendment of
pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided such amendment is
necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. No irreparable
prejudice is shown to be caused to the defendants which cannot be
compensated in terms of opportunity to rebut the amended pleadings.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that allowing the proposed amendment would facilitate a complete and
effective adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, the proposed
amendment deserves to be allowed, subject to the defendants’ right to
contest the same on merits at the appropriate stage. In view of my
above discussion, I answer point No.1 in affirmative and in reply to
point No.2, pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.1559 of 2019 in Suit No.1414 of 2017 is
allowed.
2. The Plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendment in the
plaint as prayed for in the chamber summons.
3. The amendment shall be carried out within a period of two weeks
from today.
-- 5 of 7 --
(6)
4. The amended plaint shall be filed on record after serving a copy
thereof upon the defendants.
5. The liberty is granted to the defendants to file an additional
written statement, if any, in response to the amended plaint
within the time prescribed under law.
6. No order as to costs.
7. Accordingly, Chamber Summons No.1559 of 2019 in Suit
No.1414 of 2017 is disposed of.
Date: 14.01.2026
(V. M. Sundale)
Ad-hoc Judge
Bombay City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai
-- 6 of 7 --
Order (7) Chamber Summons No.1559/2019 In
S.C. Suit No.1414/2017
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
17.01.2026 4.25 p.m. Shilpa P. Pawar
Stenographer - Grade IUPLOAD DATE TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H. H. Adhoc Judge
Shri. V. M. Sundale
Court Room No.2
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 14.01.2026
ORDER signed by P. O. on 17.01.2026
ORDER uploaded on 17.01.2026
-- 7 of 7 --