Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01011762201913 Feb 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 13 Feb 2020 · CNR MHCC010117622019

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS No.2075/2019 ..1.. S.C. Suit No.2833/2014
CNR No. MHCC01-011762-2019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.2075 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2833 OF 2014
Smt. Kamladevi Yadav and others. .. Plaintifs
Versus
Ambikaprasad Yadav and others. .. Defendants
Advocates
Sujit Nikam for plaintifs.
B. S. Gaikwad for defendant no.1.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
Sunil T. Soor.
(COURT No.: 2)
DATED : 13th February, 2020
ORAL ORDER
Chamber summons is taken out on behalf of plaintifs to
amend the plaint as per schedule annexed to chamber
summons.
2. Contention of advocate for plaintifs is that plaintif no.2
filed his affdavit of examination-in-chief on 09.10.2018 and
copy of the same is duly served upon defendants. However on
14.03.2019, advocate for defendant no.3 appeared before the
Court and informed about subsequent change in the
Management of defendant no.3's partnership firm in terms of
conversion of defendant no.3's partnership firm namely S. B.
Developers into Private Limited Company namely 'Snehanjali
and S. B. Developers Pvt. Ltd'. Hence it is necessary to amend
the plaint by adding 'Snehanjali and S. B. Developers Pvt.
Ltd'., in place of defendant no.3. Amendment is due to
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No.2075/2019 ..2.. S.C. Suit No.2833/2014
subsequent events. It does not change cause of action and
nature of the suit. Proposed amendment is necessary to
decide real controversy between the parties and to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. Hence he prayed to make
Chamber Summons absolute.
3. Advocate for defendant no.1 filed affdavit in reply.
Though advocate for defendant no.1 opposed Chamber
Summons on the ground that plaintifs have not prayed for
delay condonation but he orally submitted to allow chamber
summons with cost.
4. Plaintifs have filed present suit against defendant nos.1
to 3 for declaration that they alongwith defendant no.1 are
lawful occupants of old premises i.e., Tenement No.195 in
building no.5 in Maharashtra Housing Board Colony, Swadeshi
Mill Compound, V. N. Purav Marg, Sion Trombay Road,
Chunabhatti, Mumbai and entitled to transit accommodation
rent and receive allotment of permanent alternate
accommodation proposed to be alloted on redevelopment in
lieu of old premises.
5. Plaintifs filed on record letter dated 14.03.2019 issued
by Authorized Signatory of 'Snehanjali and S. B. Developers
Pvt. Ltd'. It is addressed to advocate for plaintifs stating that
defendant no.3 i.e., M/s. S. B. Group also known as S. B.
Developers is a partnership firm has been converted into a
Private Limited Company under the name and style as
'Snehanjali and S. B. Developers Pvt. Ltd'. (the company) on
14.01.2019 and annexed Certificate of Incorporation dated
14.01.2019. It is also mentioned in said letter that upon
reconstitution of defendant no.3 from partnership firm to a
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No.2075/2019 ..3.. S.C. Suit No.2833/2014
Private Limited Company, defendant No.3 is not in existence
as partnership firm. Hence the company is not in position to
file vakalatnama in the matter till plaintif's incorporates name
of said company in cause title of the suit. Through said letter,
advocate for plaintifs was also advised to carry out necessary
amendment in cause title of the suit so that name of 'M/s. S.
B. Group' be replaced with the name of 'Snehanjali and S. B.
Developers Pvt. Ltd'.
6. Plaintifs claimed substantial reliefs against defendant
no.3 i.e., M/s. S. B. Group as a developer. Due to change of it
in Private Limited Company namely 'Snehanjali and S. B.
Developers Pvt. Ltd'., amendment is necessary to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. Proposed amendment do not
change cause of action, nature of suit and it is necessary for
the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties. It is evident that amendment of the
plaint is necessary due to happening of subsequent event
during pendancy of the suit. Under the above facts and
circumstances, following order.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.2075 of 2019 is allowed and
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
2. Plaintifs to carry out amendment as per schedule
annexed to chamber summons within 14 days from the date
of this order.
3. Plaintifs shall file amended plaint on record and serve
copy of same on defendants including newly added defendant
no.3 i.e., 'Snehanjali and S. B. Developers Pvt. Ltd' in place of
original defendant no.3 i.e., M/s. SB Group.
4. No order as to costs.
-- 3 of 5 --
CS No.2075/2019 ..4.. S.C. Suit No.2833/2014
5. Accordingly, chamber summons is disposed of.
(S. T. Soor)
Judge
Date : 13.02.2020 Gr. Bombay
Typed on : 13.02.2020
HHJ signed on :
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No.2075/2019 ..5.. S.C. Suit No.2833/2014
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13.02.2020, 5.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. V. N. Rajgole.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. S. T. Soor
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
13.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
13.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13.02.2020
-- 5 of 5 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.