Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/sum. no.1788-19 in Suit no..5357-07
(H.Ct. No.2014-2007)
MHCC010101922019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1788 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.5357 of 2007
IN
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO 2014 OF 2007)
Rasila Madan Dedhia ..Plaintiff
V/s
Mahendra Vershi Vora And Ors ..Defendants.
A N D
Radhika Ramsakal Sahani ...Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
: Appearances:
The learned Adv. Bharat Joshi for the plaintiff
The learned Adv. Narvekar for defendant nos.1 and 2 .
ORAL ORDER
This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short,
‘CPC’ ) for amendment in the plaint as per schedule annexed thereof.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ch/sum. no.1788-19 in Suit no..5357-07
(H.Ct. No.2014-2007)
2. The plaintiff wants to add defendant no.6, Radhika
Ramsakal Sahani being proprietor of Sahani Developers, in the cause
title. It is contention of the plaintiff that, proposed defendant no.6 is
necessary and proper party being beneficiary of agreement of
Development and General Power of Attorney dated 31/08/2005 for
development of suit property. It is contended that defendant no.6
claimed that above documents executed by the plaintiff and
defendants no.1 and 2 in her favour. However, the plaintiff and
defendants no.1 and 2 have never executed any such documents. It is
contended that said documents are forged and fabricated and not
enforceable at law and liable to be set aside. The plaintiff wants to
bring this facts on record. Hence the present chamber summons.
3. Defendants no. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the chamber
summons by filing reply on affidavit. It is contended that by joining
proposed defendant no.6, the nature of the suit is going to be
changed and it will cause prejudice to defendants. The chamber
summons being devoid of substance and merit is liable to be rejected.
4. Opponent no.2 filed reply and strongly opposed the
chamber summons. It is contended that, he is developer of Sundaram
CHS Ltd. He has developed the suit building by obtaining requisite
permission from CIDCO Ltd., as well as NMMC. It is contended that
the chamber summons is not maintainable.
5. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by
defendants no.1 and 2. It is contended that the chamber summons is
taken out by the plaintiff regarding the facts about which the plaintiff
was unaware at the time of institution of the suit and the facts which
had taken place during the pendency of the suit. The defendants no.1
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ch/sum. no.1788-19 in Suit no..5357-07
(H.Ct. No.2014-2007)
and 2 also stated that they have not put signatures on the disputed
documents. Therefore, the chamber summons needs to be allowed
6. Heard both the learned advocates for respective parties
at length. Perused the record.
7. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have recorded my findings with reasons as below:
Sr.No. Points Determination
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the relief as claimed in chamber
summons
Yes
2. What order ? As per final order.
REASONS
As to Point no.1:
8. It is to be noted that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for
partition and possession of 1/3 share in the suit property. Defendants
no.1 and 2 are brothers of the plaintiff. It is contention of the plaintiff
that proposed defendant no.6 claiming that, the plaintiff and
defendants no.1 and 2 had executed an agreement of Development
and General Power of Attorney dated 31/08/2005 in her favour. It is
contended that the defendant no.6 is the promoter of Sundaram CHS
Ltd. The defendant no.5 has constructed building on suit flat, owned
by the plaintiff, illegally without having any title.
9. It is to be noted that, the plaintiff is claiming that
agreement of Development and General Power of Attorney dated
31/08/2005 did not bears her signature as well as signatures of
defendants no. 1 and 2. It is to be seen that defendants no. 2 and 3
also denied their signatures over said documents. The plaintiff came
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ch/sum. no.1788-19 in Suit no..5357-07
(H.Ct. No.2014-2007)
to know about said documents when Sundaram CHS Ltd, has filed an
application under sub section 3 of Section 11 of the Maharashtra
Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction,
Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and Rules, 1964; before
the Joint Registrar Cooperative Housing Society, the CIDCO on
07/03/2018. Thereafter the present chamber summons is taken out
for carrying out the amendment. Considering the submissions of the
plaintiff and the fact that defendants no.1 and 2 also denied their
signatures on said documents, in my view it is necessary to allow said
amendment. If the amendment is allowed then nature of the suit is
not going to be changed and no prejudice would be caused to the
other side. The amendment is necessary for just decision of the case.
Hence my answer to point no.1 is in affirmative.
As to point no.2
10. In view of my above discussion, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 1788/2019 stands allowed
and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
Amendment to be carried out within 14 days.
Amended copy of plaint be served to other side.
Chamber summons is disposed of accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court,Gr.Mumbai
Date:.10.10.2022 (C.R. No.1)
Dictated on : 10.10.2022
Transcribed on : 11.10.2022
checked and Signed on : 11.10.2022
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ch/sum. no.1788-19 in Suit no..5357-07
(H.Ct. No.2014-2007)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE 12.10.2022 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 10.10.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 10.10.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12.10.2022
-- 5 of 5 --