Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s.2063/2019 SUM.SUIT 61/2019 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 2063 of 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 61 OF 2019
(CNR.NO.MHCC010117262019)
Jayantilal Chogalal Doshi, ...Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Global Engineering & Ors. ....Defendants
Advocate Ms.Shrutika Lakhan for Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr.Rasal for Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C. R. No.: 28)
DATE : 12th DECEMBER 2019
ORDER
1. Read the chamber summons and reply to it. Heard Ld Advocates
on behalf of both the parties.
2. By present Chamber summons the plaintiff requested to grant
permission to carry out amendment in the plaint title clause.
3. The Defendant No. 3 and 4 resisted the Chamber summons. The
Ld advocate on behalf of Defendant No. 3 and 4 submitted that, if the
amendment is granted it will change nature of the suit as there will be
complete substitution by a new cause of action. The plaintiff in notice
of demand also described himself as a partnership firm, therefore now
-- 1 of 3 --
Ch/s.2063/2019 SUM.SUIT 61/2019 2
the plaintiff can not amend the plaint to describe himself as proprietary
firm. Therefore Ld. advocate requested to reject the Chamber
summons.
4. The plaint, as on today, in the title clause describes the plaintiff's
business as “Padmavati Steel and Engineering Company, a registered
partnership firm”. By present chamber summons the plaintiff proposes
to correct the description as Proprietary Firm instead of Partnership
Firm. It may be noted that, the plaint in para no.1 states that the
plaintiff is proprietor of 'Padmavati Steel'. Thus, in the narrative paras
the plaint clearly mentions the plaintiff as proprietor of Padmavati
Steel. It can be gathered that description of plaintiff as partnership firm
in the title clause is merely a mistake. Since the plaintiff proposes to
correct that mistake, no reason to reject the request. Correct
description of the parties is necessary to avoid future technical issues
that may cropup. Therefore, proposed amendment is necessary to
determine material controversy between the parties. It may be that in
the notice of demand the plaintiff mentioned himself as partner of
'Padmavati Steel'. That may also be a mistake. Even if the amendment
is allowed, there will be no change in the nature of the suit as the suit
will still remain to be for recovery of amount. In these circumstances,
the Chamber summons deserves to be allowed subject to costs. Hence,
order as follow as passed.
Order
1. The chamber summons No. 2063 of 2019 is allowed as under:
2. Permission is granted to the plaintiff to carry out amendment in the
plaint as prayed as per the schedule annexed with the Chamber
summons subject to costs of Rs.2,000/(Two thousand only) to be paid
-- 2 of 3 --
Ch/s.2063/2019 SUM.SUIT 61/2019 3
to the Defendant No. 3 and 4 by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff to pay the costs and carry out the amendment on or
before next date.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
AdHoc udge,
Date: 12/12/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 12/12/2019
Transcribed on : 14/12/2019
Signed on : 17/12/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
26/12/2019 at 4.00p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12/12/2019
26/12/2019Judgment/Order signed
by P.O. on
17/12/2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 26/12/2019
-- 3 of 3 --