Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
MHCC010099342019
Presented on : 30.09.2019
Registered on : 30.09.2019
Decided on : 06.01.2026
Duration : 6 Y 3 M 7 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1753 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 502 OF 2014
Neelam Manoj Khemka … plaintiff
V/s.
Kishor Ramchandra Raut … Defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. H. C. SHENDE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2026
Appearance :-
Mr. Ganesh Palve, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sameer Jagtap, Advocate for the defendant.
O R D E R
This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff with
prayer that to allow plaintiff to amend the plaint as per the schedule
annexed to plaint. By way of Chamber Summons, through written
statement it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff
that in the month of month of February 2017, plaintiff learnt that
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. have decided to implement the
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 6 --
C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
METRO-3 project for Colaba-Bandra-Seepz Metro Railway Corridor and
for this purpose the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. is engaged in
the acquisition of land. The suit premises is situated in Suryamahal and
the said suit property is prime requirement to this project for
construction of ‘Girgaon Station and in-situ rehabilitation of PAPs’
through redevelopment. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant as he has played fraud with plaintiff and got transferred the
suit premises in his name by forging documents and depriving the right
of plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed present suit in the year 2014 for the
relief mentioned therein. After receiving this knowledge the plaintiff
wrote letters and made some correspondence as mentioned in the
schedule annexed with the Chamber Summons. It is the writing taken
placed in between plaintiff and Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
The said correspondence taken place during pendency of suit. Some
information received by the plaintiff under the Right to Information Act
and therefore, the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint.
2. It has been further submitted that in the year 2017 the
plaintiff had moved Chamber Summons No.888/2017 in order to seek
relief to join Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (METRO-3) as
necessary party but said Chamber Summons was dismissed by the Court
on 20.08.2018 on the ground that plaintiff is not seeking any relief
against proposed defendant (METRO-3), hence METRO is neither
necessary nor proper party to suit. The plaintiff therefore wants to bring
all these facts on record. As per the plaintiff those events were taken
place during pendency of the suit. The METRO Authority considered the
defendant for Permanent Alternate Accommodation without deciding
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 6 --
C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
her claim. The amendment is necessary in order to decide the
controversy between the parties and proper adjudication of the dispute.
This Chamber Summons therefore, needs to be allowed.
3. The defendant, however, objected the claim of the plaintiff
by reply, on the ground that the Chamber Summons taken out by the
plaintiff is on the concocted ground with ulterior motive to harass the
defendant. It is barred by the law of limitation and not otherwise
maintainable. The plaintiff is guilty of Suppresso Veri and Suggestio
Falsi. The plaintiff approached this Court with unclean hands. No cause
of action occurred to filed Chamber Summons and false avernment is
made by the plaintiff by way of said Chamber Summons. It is not
supported with proper documentation. The so called correspondence if
at all taken place between plaintiff and MHADA Authority is not part of
the suit or having any concern. The Chamber Summons is not at all
maintainable. The earlier Chamber Summons No.888/2017 taken out
by plaintiff already dismissed by the Court. The tenancy and occupancy
of the defendant considered by the MMRCL Authority is as per the
provision of Section 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
and the provisions of Section 33(7) of DCPR 2034. The defendant was
made eligible as the occupant of the premises and hence the claim made
by the plaintiff is false. The plaintiff actually failed to make out case to
make any amendment in plaint. Hence, defendant prayed that Chamber
Summons needs to be dismissed.
4. Heard both the sides at length and perused record.
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 6 --
C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
5. The record suggests that in the year 2017 plaintiff had
already filed Chamber Summons No.888/2017 seeking to bring on
record the allege correspondence taken place in between plaintiff and
METRO-3 relating to the suit property. At that time the plaintiff
requested to Court add METRO-3 as party. In fact no relief claimed
against METRO-3. The said Chamber Summons was finally heard and
decided on merit by the Court. The Court was pleased to dismissed the
said Chamber Summons for the reason mentioned in the order. Now in
the said suit the plaintiff is again attempted to rely upon the said
METRO-3. METRO-3 is not implead as party. No relief passed against
METRO-3. The defendants are already in possession of Permanent
Alternate Accommodation. In my opinion the Court has already rejected
the Chamber Summons No.888/2017. So the plaintiff by way of present
Chamber Summons again reintroduced the same material without
querying the point. Particularly on the backdrop that the earlier
Chamber Summons was already rejected by this Court on merit, present
Chamber Summons filed by the plaintiff by making some changes but
the nature is same. So allowing Chamber Summons which is already
rejected, in my view is abuse of process of law.
6. In the present matter, the plaintiff wants to put up on
record the correspondence which was taken place in between plaintiff
and authority of METRO-3 which is actually a third party and such
correspondence taken place between the parties is immaterial, so it
cannot be considered because who will speak about its authenticity and
its legal effect cannot be tested. Such correspondence, in my opinion, is
irrelevant for adjudication for rights interse between plaintiff and
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 6 --
C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
defendant. The documents effecting rights of the parties is not added as
plaintiff or defendant cannot be relied. In such circumstances, the
repetition of prayer which is already rejected cannot be granted for
filing another Chamber Summons. So Court is of opinion that on the
backdrop the objection raised by the defendant and settled provisions of
law that though the principle of res-judicata is not directly applicable,
however, the order in earlier Chamber Summons is got final. So the
Court is of considered view that, no case made out by the plaintiff to
have order in his favour in respect of the Chamber Summons. Chamber
Summons deserves no merit in the eye of law. It is liable to be rejected.
7. Hence, in the circumstance and for the reason mentioned
above, the court proceed to pass the following order -
O R D E R
1. Chamber summons No.1753/2019 in Suit No.502/2014 is
dismissed.
2. Parties to take note.
3. Proceeding of Chamber Summons No.1753/2019 in Suit
No.502/2014 is closed.
Date : 06.01.2026 (H. C. Shende )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 6 --
C/S. No.1753/2019 (SC Suit No.502/2014)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
12.01.2026 at 5.30 pm ( Prajwala V. Phodkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt.H. C. Shende (C.R.No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
06.01.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
12.01.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12.01.2026
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 6 --