Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1764 OF 2019
CNR NO.MHCCO10100102019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2947 OF 2019
Junaid Salim Chaudhary ..Plaintiff
V/s
Mr.Taufiq Ahmed Khan ..Defendant
Ld. advocate Chaudhary for the plaintiff
Ld.Adv. Kamble with Adv.Shah for defendant
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI M.SALMAN AZMI
DATE: 25/11/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This chamber summons is tendered by the plaintiff
interalia to amend the plaint.
2. Heard.
3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
defendant in reply to the appeal from order
No.23397/2019 produced two leave and license
agreements dated 26/08/2014 of shop nos.1 and 2
signed by the proposed defendant Mrs. Siddiqua
Taufiq Khan. The plaintiff submitted that he lost
sight of two agreements since the copy of these
2
-- 1 of 4 --
2
agreements was not supplied to him. The plaintiff is
licensee and shops nos.1,2 and 3 where he was
running his Gym. All the rent/license fees was paid
to the wife of the defendant by the plaintiff. He
would submit that it is necessary to bring the said
facts on record and to amend the plaint accordingly.
4. The defendant opposed the chamber summons and
contended that plaintiff wish to change the entire
nature of the suit and wish to add the proposed
defendant as owner of shop nos.1 and 2. The
proposed amendment is not maintainable under law.
5. The plaintiff has given rejoinder and denied the
contentions of the defendant.
6. On perusal of the plaint avernments it appears that
plaintiff has described the suit shop as shop no.3 and
has categorically admitted that he is carrying on
business of Gym at the suit premises. It is the
contention of the plaintiff that shop nos.1,2 and 3 is
one unit and due to over sight the plaintiff failed to
describe the suit property. The description of the
property, if not properly described, can be described
at any stage. No prejudice would be caused to the
defendants if the description of the suit property is
made properly. So far as, the objection of changing
the nature of the suit does not appears to be
maintainable for the reason that by changing the
3
-- 2 of 4 --
3
description of the suit property and by adding the
defendant, the main relief of the plaintiff for
restoration of the possession would not alter. The
plaintiff in many words have contended that
proposed defendant has forcibly put the lock and
removed the plaintiff from the suit premises. Even, it
is the contention of the plaintiff that the amount of
license fee was handed over to wife of defendant. In
view of that there is no material alteration in the
pleadings. Ld. Counsel for the defendant raised that
relief is time barred qua the proposed defendant.
The plaintiff claims that he is dispossessed on
10/04/2019 at the hands of proposed defendant.
The chamber summons was tendered on 24/09/2019
i.e. within a period of six months from the alleged
cause of action. So, at this juncture, the objection is
not maintainable. The proposed amendment as
pointed above does not change the basic nature of
the pleadings and is not prejudicial to the interest of
the defendant. Hence, it is expedient to pass
following order:
ORDER
1. ch/s 1764/2019 is made absolute in prayer
clause a and b.
2. plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment
within a period of 7 days from today.
4
-- 3 of 4 --
4
3. ch/s 1764/2019 is disposed of accordingly.
25/11/2019 M.SALMAN AZMI
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 25/11/2019
Transcribed on : 02/12/2019
Signed on : 13/12/2019
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
13/12/19 at 12.40 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.1
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
25/11/2019
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 13/12/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 13/12/2019
-- 4 of 4 --