Skip to main content
CHAMBER SUMMONS

Suhas Dattatraya Bhave - deceased +1 moreVsPurav Construction and Ors.

CNR MHCC0100904520192-COURT 02 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
CASE DISPOSED
Contested--ALLOWED
Decision Date: 07th November 2019

TrustJury record updated 22 Sept 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
101595/2019
Registration Date
29 Aug 2019

Advocates

1

For Respondent

    Not available

    Parties

    3

    Acts & Sections

    1
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act · Sec 9

    Case History / Proceedings

    Case History
    Date: 03-10-2019
    Business: Adv.Suhas Deokar for Plaintiff present.
    He terndered original Chamber summons no.1595/19.
    Adv. Bhargavi for defendant  no 2 present. She filed reply to Ch/s.
    Copy given to other side
    Plaintiff is directed to file affidavit of service of Chamber summons upon defendant no 1
    Adjd. to 7.11.2019  for  service report.
    Next Purpose: REPORT
    Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2019
    
    Date: 07-11-2019
    Business: Adv. Suhas Deokar for plaintiff present.
    Adv. Miss Bhargavi for defendant no.2 present.
    Affidavit of service filed by adv. for plaintiff t.o.r.
    None appeared on behalf of defendant no 1.
    KB
    LO
    ORDER PASSED BELOW CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1595 OF 2019
    Perused chamber summons, affidavit in support of it and reply of defendant No.2. Heard respective counsel for parties. Defendant No.1 did not file any reply. Matter is already proceeded exparte against rest of the defendants.
    Chamber summons is taken out by plaintiffs to incorporate subsequent event in relation to allotment of alternate accommodation to defendant No.2 by defendant No.1.
    It is contended that there was no specific pleadings in plaint about handing over possession of permanent alternate accommodation to defendant No.2 as said fact occurred after filing of suit.  It is contended that amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties. As there is no specific pleadings to that effect hence issue No.1 was not framed in proper manner.  In light of these contentions plaintiffs have prayed for allowing chamber summons.
    Defendant No.2 opposed chamber summons on the count that it is taken out at belated stage and when trial has already commenced and therefore, chamber summons is bad in law and also barred by law of limitation.  It is contended that alternate accommodation was handed over by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 in May, 2014 and said fact is also observed in order dated 18.09.2014.  So since September, 2014 plaintiffs are aware about the said fact. However, they failed to give any reason for making application at belated stage.
    It is not in dispute that present chamber summons is taken out when present matter is posted for cross-examination of PW 1.  It is to be noted that plaintiffs have filed an application for recasting of issue vide Exh.13.  Plaintiffs have not pressed said application so it was disposed off with liberty to them to take appropriate proceedings. While not pressing said application plaintiffs have preserved their right to make an application for amendment of pleadings.  It is also not in dispute that fact of handing over of possession of alternate accommodation is mentioned in order dated 18.09.2014 passed in Notice of Motion No.2832 of 2014. In this background I consider present chamber summons.
    It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have also prayed in the suit that defendant No.2, its servants, agents and persons working under them be restrained by an order of permanent injunction from transferring, alienating, selling or creating third party interest in alternate accommodation.  But they have not raised contest about handing over of possession in the plaint.  So issue was not raised in that regard.  In my view in order to decide the controversy between parties proposed amendment is just and necessary particularly considering the prayer made by the plaintiffs as pointed above.  No doubt, delay has been caused in taking out present chamber summons but cross-examination of PW-1 is yet not commenced.  In view of that fact no prejudiced will be caused to defendant No.2 if proposed amendment is allowed subject to imposing certain costs upon the plaintiffs. Hence, pass following order
    ORDER
    1.Chamber Summons No.1595 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)  and  (b) subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to defendant No.2 within period of two weeks from the date of this order.
          Plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit costs payable to defendant no.2 in the Court.
    2.  After payment of costs, plaintiffs are permitted to carry out amendment as per schedule annexed to chamber summons within period of two weeks.
    3.    Accordingly, chamber summons is disposed off.
    Adjourned for direction to 07.12.2019
    Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
    Disposal Date: 07-11-2019

    Additional Case Details

    Additional Case Details
    Filing Number: 109636/2019
    Filing Date: 29-08-2019
    First Hearing Date: 03rd October 2019
    Decision Date: 07th November 2019
    Court Number And Judge: 2-COURT 02 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE

    Orders

    1
    Final Order 1Full order available
    07 Nov 2019

    Order Details: Other Pdf Text: 7.11.2019 SU 563/14 Ch/s 1595/19 CORAM: H. H. J. SHRI.M.T.ASIM (CR. NO. 02) Adv. Suhas Deokar for plaintiff present. Adv. Miss Bhargavi for defendant no.2 present. Affidavit of service filed by adv. for plaintiff t.o.r. None appeared on behalf of defendant no 1. KB LO ORDER PASSED BELOW CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1595 OF 2019 Perused chamber summons, affidavit in support of it and reply of defendant No.2. Heard respective counsel for parties. Defendant No.1 did not…

    Read Full Order

    TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.