Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1945 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.4601 OF 2007
Corporation Bank
At Veena Chambers 21,
Dalal Street,
Fort, Mumbai400 023 ..... Plaintiff
V/s
1. Ramchandra N.Mahajan
2. Jyoti R.Mahajan
3. Suresh D.Angre .....Defendants
APPEARANCE:
Ld.Counsel U.S.Shetty for plaintiff.
CORAM : H. H. ADHOC JUDGE
SHRI MILIND A. BHOSALE
(COURT ROOM NO. 32)
DATE : 27th November, 2019
ORDER
Perused Chamber Summons No.1945 of 2019 and record in
Suit No.4601 of 2007.
Heard Ld.Counsel for plaintiff and defendant no.3.
It is submitted by the plaintiff that the present suit has been
filed by plaintiff in the year 2007 by the authorized representative
Prabhakar Shenoy. Thereafter, he was retired. Thereafter, the
plaintiff have made to serve summons to the defendants but the
service attempts have been unsuccessful. It is further submitted
-- 1 of 4 --
2
that the Chamber Summons be allowed then no prejudice or loss
will be caused to the defendants. Lastly, it is prayed that plaintiff
be allowed to substitute the name of existing Officer Bharatkumar
V.Mehta in the title clause by way of amendment.
Defendant no.3 resisted Chamber Summons by way of
written reply. It is contended by the defendant no.3 and denied
entire contention mentioned by plaintiff in the Chamber
Summons. It is pointed out by defendant no.3 that defendant no.3
strongly objected to allow the Chamber Summons and lastly it is
prayed that Chamber Summons may kindly be rejected.
After hearing Ld.Counsel for plaintiff and defendant no.3 I
drew my attention towards record. Admittedly, initially suit is
filed by Prabhakar Shenoy the and then officer of plaintiff bank.
As per the contention of Chamber Summons the existing Officer
Bharatkumar V.Mehta is authorized by plaintiff bank to tender
affidavit and take legal steps against the defendant. Therefore, it
is necessary on the part of plaintiff to brought the existing officer
Bharatkumar V. Mehta to the title clause of the plaint.
Technically, it is subsequent event and if as per the prayer of
plaintiff this kind of amendment is formal in nature and if
permitted then no prejudice would be caused to the defendant.
Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.1945 of 2019 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a).
-- 2 of 4 --
3
2. Plaintiff is directed to carry out amendment within 14 days.
Date:27/11/2019 (Milind A.Bhosale)
AdHoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 27/11/2019
Typed on :27/11/2019
H.H.J.Signed on :27/11/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
27.11.2019 at 5.30 p.m. (Mrs.P.P.Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) SHRI M.A.BHOSALE
(C.R. NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
27.11.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 27.11.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 27.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4
-- 4 of 4 --