Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 C/S NO.2033 of 2019
CNR:MHCC010115262019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL C0URT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.2033 OF 2019
IN
L.C.SUIT SUIT NO.1951 OF 2015
Smt. Laxmi Vilas Hande .. Plaintiff
V/s.
1 Shri Kiran Narayan Hande & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearance:
Adv. S. T. Valunj for plaintiff.
Adv. B.S. Sutar for MCGM/ defendant.
None for defendant No.6.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. A.H. KASHIKAR
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR.
BOMBAY
(C.R. NO.05).
DATE : 11/08/2022
ORDER
1 The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for
carrying out amendment in the suit plaint.
2 The defendant No.6 has filed reply and opposed the
proposed amendment.
3 Heard Adv. for plaintiff at length. The Adv. for
defendant No.6 remained absent, hence, Chamber Summons is
decided without hearing Adv. for defendant No.6.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C/S NO.2033 of 2019
4 This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff for
correction in the name of defendant No.6. According to her, she
has made the proprietor and developer as party defendant No.6.
However, the party defendant No.6 must be the Director of Private
Limited Company. Hence, necessary amendment in the suit plaint
may be allowed in the interest of justice. It is said that no
prejudice will be caused to the defendant in case amendment of
title in the suit is allowed.
5 In the reply, defendant No.6 made submission that the
defendant No.6 is a company which is redeveloping the Byculla
Market. In the cause title, the plaintiff described defendant No.6
as “Purabi Developers Private Limited, Proprietor and Developer,
Dr. Rajendra Singh and now she wants to replace the title by
adding the nomenclature Director of Private Limited Company. In
fact, defendant No.6 is a company incorporated under the
companies Act 1956 and it is distinct and separate from its
directors. The company should be sued in its own capacity and
there is no necessity of adding any director as a party defendant.
Hence, the amendment having no merit needs to be rejected.
6 I have perused the record. It reveals that in the cause
title, the plaintiff made Proprietor and Developer of defendant
No.6 as defendant. However, it is even admitted by the defendant
No.6 also that it is not a proprietary concern but a company
incorporated under Companies Act 1956. A company cannot be
sued unless the Director is made party. Hence, in said
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C/S NO.2033 of 2019
circumstances, the Director of the company can be made party to
the suit. Above all, it reveals that defendant No.6 is already added
as a party and by way of this amendment, the plaintiff proposes to
change the nomenclature only. Said change is justified and the
same is not going to cause any prejudice either to the defendant
No.6 or any other party. Per contra, the right party with proper
name will be added in the suit and the same is required for proper
determination of rights of parties Above all, it is for the plaintiff to
establish that the Director is not the necessary party to the suit and
the same can be proved on merit. Hence, considering the above
discussion, I hold that the amendment deserves to be allowed in
the interest of justice. Resultantly, following order is passed.
ORDER
1 Chamber Summons No.2033 of 2019 is made absolute
in terms of prayer clause(a).
2 The plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendment as
per the contents of Chamber Summons on or before next date.
3 Consequential amendment to follow.
Date:11/08/2022.
(A.H.KASHIKAR)
ADHOC Judge, City Civil Court,
Dictated on :11/08/2022. Gr.Mumbai.
Typed on :11/08/2022.
Signed on :11/08/2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C/S NO.2033 of 2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
12/08/2022 3.35 p.m. (Santosh B. Sawant )
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
No.)
HHJ Smt. A.H. Kashikar
(C.R.No.05)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
11/08/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
11/08/2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12/08/2022.
-- 4 of 4 --