Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Dt:11.01.2024
SU 4504/2013
CORAM : H.H.J. SHRI S.H. SALUNKHE ( C.R. No. 04 )
Advocate Kudalkar for plaintiff present.
Counsel Adv. A. R. Singh a/w Advocate Mhatre for
defendant/BMC present.
Following order is passed on Ch/S No. 1577/2019
O R D E R
1. The plaintiff has taken out this Ch/S under order 6 rule 17
of CPC for amendment in the plaint. ch/s is supported by
affidavit, it is contended that the structure is in existence since
long back and father of the plaintiff has appointed G. G. Bhide
as Engineer Architect for the purpose of existing structure and
Architect has submitted plan of proposed repairs of the
building. However this documents remains annexed to the
plaint as suit was filed hurriedly. By way of proposed
amendment the plaintiff is seeking permission to incorporate
contention in respect of repairs permission of the existing
structure and plan or plan submits for repairs and permission
for repairs.
2. Adv. Counsel for defendant/corporation opposed Chambers
summons stating that ch/s is illegal and bad in law and not
maintainable. It is further contended that the proposed
amendment is not relevant necessary for decision of the suit. It
is further submitted that plaintiff has challenged notice u/s 354
- A of MMC Act and therefore the documents relating to earlier
repairs permission are not relevant. The plaintiff is misleading
the Court and prolonging the prior of the suit and enjoying the
ad-interim protection. On this ground defendant prayed for
dismissal of ch/s.
3. Heard Adv. for the parties. Perused Ch/S, affidavit in
support thereof and documents on record.
4. The plaintiff has taken out the Ch/S for amendment in the
plaint. The plaintiff that the structure is in existence since long
back and father of the plaintiff has appointed Shri. G. G. Bhide
as Engineer Architect for the purpose of existing structure and
Architect has submitted plan of proposed repairs of the
building. The plaintiff has challenged notice u/s 354 - A of
-- 1 of 2 --
SU 4504/2013
MMC Act. It contention of suit that the existence of structure
this documents are relevant.
5. It is well settled that the amendment of pleading at pretrial
stage should be normally allowed if no any prejudice or
injustice is caused to the other side and if the proposed
amendment is necessary for complete and effective adjudication
of the controversy involved in the suit and the nature of the
Suit is not likely to be changed as result of the amendment.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of LIC V/s Sanjeev Builders
Pvt. Ltd. and Anrs. (Civil Appeal No. 5909/2022 ) held that all
the amendment are to be allowed which are necessary for
determining real question in controversy provided it does not
cause injustice and prejudice to other side and this is
mandatory as per provision of order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
6. In this case the Suit is at pretrial stage. By way of
proposed amendment plaintiff is seeking permission to
incorporate pleading in respect of permission of repairs and
submission of plan for repaires. It appears that the proposed
amendment is just and necessary for effective and complete
adjudication of the dispute. The nature of Suit is not likely to be
changed if the proposed amendment is allowed and no
prejudice or injustice would cause to other side. The
corporation opposed ch/s on ground that plaintiff producing
documents at belated stage. However the ch/s for amendment
can not be rejected on ground of delay. In the circumstance
Ch/S deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass following order-
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) and (b)
2. Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment within week.
3. Copy of amended plaint be served upon other side.
4. Ch/S stands disposed of accordingly.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd to 18.01.2024 for Compliance
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --