Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 CS168319 IN SUIT 150407
MHCC010094922019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1683 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 1504 OF 2007
Paneer Supayya Devendra & Others ] ...Plaintiffs.
Versus
MHADA & Others ]....Defendants.
Appearance:
Ld Advocate Vinod Mishra for Plaintiff.
Ld Advocate Mangal Kadam for Defendant No.1/MHADA.
Ld Advocate Som Singh @ Chandramore for Defendant No.3/MEGM.
CORAM : K.P. KSHIRSAGAR
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
DATE : 25/8/2022
ORAL ORDER
1) Plaintiffs have taken out present chamber summons for allowing
them to amend the plaint as per schedule.
2) Perused the chamber summons, affidavit in support of chamber
summons, affidavit in reply of defendant No.3 and record. Heard argument
advanced by Ld Advocate for plaintiff and Ld Advocate for defendant No.3.
3) Ld Advocate for plaintiff argued that by the proposed
amendment plaintiff wants to bring on record the subsequent
events/developments related to illegal demolition of the suit structure of
plaintiff No.5 and 24 and breach of order of status quo dtd.23/8/17 which
transpired during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiffs by the proposed
amendment wants to incorporate the prayer for restoring the suit structure
-- 1 of 5 --
2 CS168319 IN SUIT 150407
of plaintiff No.5 and 24 and want to incorporate prayer for providing
alternate accommodation. Proposed amendment is necessary for deciding
the real controversy between the parties and for avoiding multiplicity of the
suits. The proposed amendment is not likely to change the nature of the suit
and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants. The subsequent events
sought to be brought on record occurred after the commencement of the
trial. Therefore, plaintiff could not brought on record the above fact before
the commencement of the trial. Hence, Ld advocate for plaintiff prayed that
chamber summons be made absolute.
4) On the other hand Ld advocate for defendant No.3 argued that
suit structures of all the plaintiffs are already demolished and therefore the
suit already become infructuous. There was no ad interim order against
MCGM. The proposed amendment will change the nature of suit. The
chamber summons is abuse of law. Therefore, Ld advocate for defendant
No.3 submitted that notice of motion be dismissed.
5) As the other defendants failed to advance their arguments they
could not be heard.
6) From the matter on record it appears that plaintiffs have filed
present suit for declaration that they being occupants of the suit
premises/structure are entitled to be rehabilitated under Regulation 33(10)
of Development Control Regulation and for permanent injunction restraining
defendant from disturbing peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of
the suit structures of the plaintiff. From the record it appears that from time
to time the suit structures were demolished. It appears that by the proposed
amendment plaintiff want to incorporate subsequent events which transpired
during pendency of the suit in the year 2017 and thereafter about the
demolition of the suit structure belonging to plaintiff No.5 and 24 and also
wants to incorporate the prayer directing defendant No.3 to restore the suit
structure of plaintiff No.5 and 24. It also appears that by the proposed
-- 2 of 5 --
3 CS168319 IN SUIT 150407
amendment plaintiffs want to incorporate prayer of directing defendants to
provide plaintiffs alternate accommodation and to pay damages. Considering
the nature of the proposed amendment it appears that the proposed
amendment is not likely to change the nature of the suit. In view of prayer
clause (a) and (b) of the plaint there appear no substance in the contention
of the defendant No.3 that suit already became infructuous as suit structure
has already been demolished. The proposed amendment appears to be
bonafide and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant if the
chamber summons is made absolute. From matter on record proposed
amendment appears necessary for avoiding multiplicity of suits.
7) As plaintiff wants to bring on record by the proposed
amendment subsequent events which transpired during the pendency of the
suit after commencement of trial the court is satisfied that in spite of due
diligence plaintiff could not have raised the said matter before
commencement of trial. Considering the matter on record and above
discussion the present chamber summons deserves to be made absolute.
Therefore, court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER
1) Chamber Summons No. 1683 of 2019 is made absolute.
2) Plaintiff shall carry out the amendment as per schedule within 14 days
from the date of this order.
3) Chamber Summons No. 1683 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Date : 25/8/2022
(Shri. K.P. Kshirsagar)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 CS168319 IN SUIT 150407
Dictated on:25/8/2022.
Typed on : 26/8/2022.
Checked on :29/8/2022.
Signed on :29/8/2022.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 CS168319 IN SUIT 150407
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
30/8/2022 Mrs. S.A. Shekade.
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
SHRI K.P. Kshirsagar (Court Room
No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
25/8/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
29/8/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 30/8/2022.
-- 5 of 5 --