Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010094142019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1664 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 3147 OF 2018
Devang Dinesh Parmar ]..Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Devang Dinesh Parmar ]..Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Sanjay Sharma and others ]..Defendants
Plaintiff in person.
Advocate Mr. Sanket Mungle alongwith Advocate Ms. Uma Sharma for
defendant Nos.1 and 2.
Advocate Mrs. Chandramore for defendant Nos.3 and 4/BMC.
Advocate Ms. Mangal Kadam for defendant Nos.6 and 7/MHADA.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2023
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff has taken out present Chamber Summons for
allowing to carry out amendment in the plaint as per the Schedule
annexed to the Chamber Summons.
-- 1 of 6 --
2
2 The contention of the plaintiff in short is that he has filed
present suit against the defendants for declaration that defendant Nos.1
and 2 have obtained the Judgment/Decree/Order dated 26.09.2011 in
L.C. Suit No.4666 of 2005 by fraud and on the basis of forged and
fabricated rent receipts made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 showing as a tenant of Flat No.1 and terrace and also a rent
receipt in favour of his mother Brahmadevi Sharam and encroached the
common terrace on the basis of forged and fabricated Power of
Attorney.
3. It is further contended that the defendants excluding
MHADA had colluded with each other and obtained decree from this
Court fraudulently by misleading the Court by producing false and
forged documents. At the time of filing suit, due to oversight, the
certified true copy of Judgment/Decree/Order dated 26.09.2011
remained to be annexed with the plaint and also Extract of C.S.
Registrar issued by City Survey Office is remained to be annexed. The
above documents were not available with the plaintiff, as above suit was
filed in great hurry in order to avoid the limitation.
4. It is further contended that the plaintiff wants to bring on
record the facts and pleadings that Judgment dated 26.09.2011 passed
by this Court is obtained by playing fraud and collusion between the
defendants and he wants to insert necessary pleadings as per the
schedule annexed to the Chamber summons. Therefore, prayed that
Chamber summons be allowed.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed reply to the Chamber
summons and strongly opposed the same by submitting that there is no
cause to file Chamber Summons and the Chamber Summons is filed to
delay and avoid the hearing of Notice of Motion No.675 of 2019 filed by
the defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order-VII Rule-11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It is submitted that amendment sought for is uncalled for,
undesirable and unwarranted more so it is repetition of narration
narrated in the plaint. The defendants have denied that they have
obtained Judgment/Decree/Order in Suit No.4666/2005 by alleged
fraud and on the basis of alleged fraudulent and fabricated rent receipts
in respect of Flat No.1 and that they have colluded with co-defendants.
It is submitted that the Chamber Summons filed by the plaintiff leads to
waste of time and it is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Perused Chamber Summons and Affidavit in support of
Chamber Summons as well as reply filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.
Heard the learned advocates for both the parties at length. The
following points arise for my determination and I have recorded my
findings to them for the reasons stated below.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient
cause to amend the plaint ?
In the
Affirmative
2 What order? As per the final order
-- 3 of 6 --
4
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
7. From rival submissions, it can be gathered that the plaintiff
has sought amendment in the plaint by submitting that he wish to insert
the pleadings in support of his case regarding obtaining decree from
this Court by fraud and collusion in between the defendants. The
defendant has opposed the same by submitting that the Chamber
Summons is undesirable and unwarranted and it is repetition of
narration narrated in the plaint. Upon hearing both the sides, I am of
the opinion that the plaintiff intends to insert pleadings by way of
amendment which is not inconsistent with his pleadings. The plaintiff
is not going to make out new case. So far as the contentions in the
pleadings are concerned, those are denied by the defendants. However,
at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. The
proposed amendment is necessary for determining real questions in
controversy between the parties and for finally adjudicating the matter
on merits. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants, if the
proposed amendment is allowed. Therefore, I hold that the proposed
amendment is required to be allowed. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
8. As the plaintiff has made out case for amendment in the
plaint, I hold that the Chamber Summons deserves to be allowed in
terms of prayer clause. In the result, I proceed to pass the following
order:-
-- 4 of 6 --
5
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.1664 of 2019 is hereby
made absolute.
2. The plaintiff to carry out amendment in the plaint
as per the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons
within 14 days and further directed to place on record
amended copy of the plaint.
3. The plaintiff is directed to supply amended copies
of the plaint to the defendants.
4 Chamber Summons No. 1664 of 2019 stands
disposed off accordingly.
(VAIBHAV V. PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 07/10/2023 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 07/10/2023
Transcribed on : 11/10/2023
Signed on : 12/10/2023
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
12/10/2023 At 03.00 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S.PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
07/10/2023
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/10/2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/10/2023
-- 6 of 6 --