Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 04 AD-HOC ASST SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :CHAMBER SUMMONS/0102349/2019
Shubham Mandap Decorators Vs B.M.C. and Ors.
Date : 12-01-2023
Business : Mr. Jagdish, partner of plaintiff present. Adv. for plaintiff
absent. Adv. Mrs. Rawade for defendant Nos.1 and 2/ BMC
is present. Adv. Sonawane for defendant No.3 present.
None for deft. No.5. Following order is passed on Ch/S
No.2349/2019- O R D E R 1. The plaintiff has taken out
this Ch/S under order 6 rule 17 of CPC for carrying out
amendment in the plaint. By way of proposed amendment
plaintiff is seeking permission to incorporate contention
regarding filing of PIL and amendment in the MRTP Act in
the year 2017. So also plaintiff is seeking amendment in the
prayer clause by inserting (para 69, l-i). It is contended that
the proposed amendment is respect of subsequent events
i.e. filing of PIL and amendment in the MRTP Act. It is
further contended that the proposed amendment is
necessary for complete and effective adjudication of dispute
involved in the suit. 2. Adv. for defendant/ corporation
opposed application. It is contended that by way of
proposed amendment plaintiff want to insert amendment in
the law. However, law point can be argued and need not to
be plead. The matter is old and plaintiff is purposely
delaying the suit and Ch/S is taken out at delayed stage.
The other defendant have not filed reply. 3. Heard Adv. for
the plaintiff and defendant/ BMC. Perused Ch/S, affidavit
in support thereof and documents on record. 4. The plaintiff
has taken out the Ch/S for amendment in the plaint. The
plaintiff is seeking permission to incorporate contentions in
respect of filing of PIL in Hon&amp#039ble High
Court and contentions as to amendment in the MRTP Act.
In this suit issues are framed but trial of the suit is not
commenced. It is well settled that the amendment of
pleading at pretrial stage should be normally allowed if no
any prejudice or injustice is caused to the other side and if
the nature of the Suit is not likely to be changed as result of
the amendment. In this case the Suit is at pretrial stage. The
defendant/ corporation opposed application on ground that
law need not to be pleaded . However, while considering
the application for amendment merits of the proposed
amendment cannot be gone into. It is well settled that Court
has to be liberal in permitting amendment unless serious
injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. So
also if nature of the suit is not likely to be changed as a
result of amendment it should normally be permitted. Delay
in taking out amendment application cannot be ground to
-- 1 of 2 --
reject the prayer of amendment. In the case in hand it
appears that the proposed amendment is just and necessary
for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The
nature of Suit is not likely to be changed if the proposed
amendment is allowed. Therefore, Ch/S deserves to be
allowed. Hence, I pass following order- O R D E R 1. Ch/S
No.2349/2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause(a). 2.
Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment within a one
week. 3. Copy of amended plaint be served upon other side.
4. Ch/S No.2349/2019 stands disposed of accordingly.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Nature of Disposal : ALLOWED
Disposal Date : 12-01-2023
COURT 04 AD-HOC ASST SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 2 of 2 --