Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/sum. no.1946-19, in Suit no.1054-17
MHCC010111372019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1946 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.1054 of 2017
Smt. Rekha Vitthal Patil Alias
Rekha wd/o Sanjay Vaidya ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Sitaram Vitthal Tavare and Ors ..Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
: Appearances:
The learned Adv. Jitendra Tiwari for plaintiff
The learned Adv. Mohd. Shah /Adv. Mr. Kanojia for defendant no.5
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff has taken out the present chamber
summons for claiming the reliefs interalia, to condone the delay, if
any, and to allow the chamber summons; to permit the plaintiff to
amend the suit as per the schedule annexed thereto and for other
reliefs.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ch/sum. no.1946-19, in Suit no.1054-17
2. In short, it is contention of the plaintiff that, on
27/09/2016 at about 2.15 p.m., defendant no.1 and defendant no.5
along with unknown lady and 9 unknown persons all of a sudden
came to the premises and started abusing her in filthy language.
They have forcibly dispossess and evicted from the suit premises.
Therefore, the plaintiff went to the police station, Sion on same date.
However, police officer was not ready to register FIR against
defendants and their associates. Hence the plaintiff has filed Writ
Petition no.4345/16 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. On
29/03/2017 the Sion Police Station has registered FIR No. 78/2017
against defendants and their associates. Thereafter the chargesheet
came to be filed against the accused. The plaintiff also came to know
that, defendants in collusion and connivance with each other had
prepared forge and fabricated documents and transferred the
electricity meter in the name of one Navnath Nikam. Thus she again
lodged the FIR against defendants. Accordingly FIR No. 333/18 came
to be registered against the defendants. Thus the plaintiff want to
bring all these facts on record by way of amendment. Hence the
chamber summons.
3. Defendants strongly opposed the chamber summons by
filing reply on affidavit. It is contention of the defendant that the
present chamber summons as filed is not tenable and liable to be
dismissed. So far as registration of FIR 78/2017 is concerned, it is
prior to institution of the suit. So far as the another FIR is concerned
it is dated 10/12/2018, but till 4/11/2019 the plaintiff has not
moved the chamber summons. Already the trial has commenced,
hence the chamber summons may kindly be rejected.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ch/sum. no.1946-19, in Suit no.1054-17
4. Heard the learned advocate for the plaintiff and the
defendants. Perused the record.
5. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have record my findings with reasons as follows:
Sr.
No.
Points Determination.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought in the chamber summons ?
Yes
2. What order ? As per final
order
REASONS
As to point no.1:
6. It is to be seen that, registration of both FIR had
happened during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has came with
specific allegations that she was forcibly dispossessed from the suit
premises. Therefore, to substantiate her contention she has to prove
her case by leading cogent evidence. It is contention of the plaintiff
that, as the police refused to registered the FIR, hence she has to
approach to the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the FIR no. 78/2017
came to be registered against defendants. So far as another FIR is
concerned, it is in respect of allegations regarding preparation of
forged and fabricated documents.
7. It is to be seen that the plaintiff has filed the suit under
section 6 of the Specific relief Act for restoration of possession and for
permanent injunction. It is contention of the plaintiff that she had
acquired possession of the suit premises from one Smt. Rukhmabai
Taware. The plaintiff was doing her tailoring business in the suit
premises since 1994 to 27/09/2016 without any interference,
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ch/sum. no.1946-19, in Suit no.1054-17
interruption and disturbance, till she was forcibly dispossessed from
the suit premises. Now by way of amendment the plaintiff want to
bring on record the fact of filling two FIR against defendants i.e. FIR
no. 78/17 dated 29/03/2017 and FIR No. 333/18 dated 10/12/2018.
In my view by allowing such amendment no prejudice would be
caused to defendants as they have right to cross examined the
plaintiff. Even the nature of the suit is not going to be changed.
Therefore the plaintiff has made out case for amendment. Hence, my
answer to point no.1 is in affirmative.
As to point no.2:
8. In view of my above discussion, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 1946/2019 is allowed and made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to payment of
cost of Rs.3000/ paid to the defendants equally.
Amendment be carried out within 14 days from the date
of order.
Chamber summons is disposed of accordingly
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court,Gr.Mumbai
Date:.17.09.2022 (C.R. No.1)
Dictated on : 17.09.2022
Transcribed on : 19.09.2022
Signed on :
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ch/sum. no.1946-19, in Suit no.1054-17
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE 20.09.2022 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 17.09.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 20.09.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 20.09.2022
-- 5 of 5 --