Interim Order 3

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Exh 23 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
CNR No. MHSC A30003942022
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI.
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Order Below Exhibit 23
In
R. A. E. Suit No. 160/2022
Mr. Raynold John Cabral & Anrs Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Mr. Trilok Singh Mehta Defendant.
Shri. T. R. Patel, advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri. K. M. Samdade, advocate for the defendant.
Coram : Shri B.T. Zirape, Judge.
C.R. No. 38 (B.B.)
Date : 15.12.2022.
Oral Order :
1) This is an application filed on behalf of defendant for
amendment in reply to injunction application and written
statement. According to him, his learned advocate drafted the
deposit of rent application, written statement and reply to
injunction notice in hurry to give the client immediate relief. In his
honest endeavour, some mistake crept into all these applications
and several omissions were made regarding the address of the
defendant which needs to be corrected and inserted by way of
amendment of verification clause or anywhere else. The defendant
contended that wrong address of the defendant be substituted by
right address. The defendant wants to replacement of words in
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Exh 23 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
point No. 1 line No. 3 and 4 of the reply to injunction application.
The defendant wants to add word “and” and wants to replace word
“archie Cabral” with words “no one”. The defendant wants to
correct grammatical mistake in point No. 8 of the reply to
injunction application. The defendant wants to change name of
police station. So also, the defendant wants to make addition of
prayer clause and to make necessary changes in his written
statement. According to the defendant, proposed amendment is
necessary to determine the real question in controversy between
parties on merit finally. According to the defendant, nature of the
suit will not be changed by proposed amendment. No prejudice
will be caused to other side. Finally, defendant requested to grant
application.
2) On the contrary, the plaintiffs resisted the application
by filing reply on the backside of the application itself. The
plaintiffs have strongly objected for grant of the present
application. According to them, the present application is false,
frivolous and vague. No schedule of amendment is annexed with
the application. The payer of the application is also not proper.
There is nothing but only prolonging the hearing of injunction
notice, the present application is filed by the defendant. No
sufficient reasons and satisfactory explanation at the time of filing
of written statement and reply is given in the application. The
concern advocate make mistake deliberately and intentionally.
Now, the present advocate for the defendant wants to correct
grammatical mistake is totally wasting the time of the court.
According to the plaintiffs, the present application has no merit
and liable to be dismissed with costs.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Exh 23 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
3) Heard both the sides. After hearing the rival
submissions of the parties, I have gone through the record and
proceeding of the present matter. Present suit is appears to be filed
for eviction on the grounds particularly set out in the plaint. It is
argued on behalf of the defendant that earlier advocate filed reply
in hurry. Therefore, present application is filed for amendment in
reply to the injunction notice and written statement. There are
typographical and grammatical mistake in reply. No harm or
prejudice will be caused to the other side. Finally, the learned
advocate for the defendant requested to grant of the application.
4) On the contrary, the learned advocate for the plaintiffs
vehemently argued that party cannot be allowed to withdraw his
admission. No schedule of amendment is annexed. No specific
prayer is made in the application. Application is totally vague.
Earlier, the suit is filed in Dindoshi court against BMC. By way of
present amendment application, defendant wants to delete word
“Archie Cabral”. It will amount to withdrawal of the admission.
Finally, the learned advocate for the plaintiffs requested for
rejection of the application.
5) Perusal of application shows that the defendant wants
to amend in reply to injunction notice as well as in his written
statement. The learned advocate for the defendant wants to
replace the words in point No. 1, line No. 3 and 4 of the
application. No separate schedule is annexed with this application.
Defendant directly mentioned in para No. 4 that he wants to add
prayer but what prayer clause he wants to insert is not mentioned
in the application. He wants to make necessary changes in written
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Exh 23 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
statement also. So also, defendant wants to change wrong address
of the defendant but what is right address is not mentioned. Prima
facie, application appears to be vague. The defendant has not filed
schedule of amendment along with the application. Which prayer
clause defendant wants to insert is not mentioned in the
application. So also, defendant wants to correct grammatical
mistake to point No. 8. However, defendant has not mentioned
word or any sentence which he wants to correct. As such, the
entire application appears to be vague. Therefore, present
application cannot be granted. As such, I find no merit in the
argument advanced on behalf defendant. On the contrary, the
argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs appears to be
justifiable. However, liberty can be granted to the defendant for
filing fresh application of amendment along with the schedule.
Hence, application deserves to be rejected. In this view of matter, I
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) The application stands rejected.
2) The defendant is at liberty to file fresh
application for amendment along with the
schedule of amendment.
(B.T. Zirape)
Judge.
Date : 15.12.2022. C.R. No. 38.(B.B.)
Order dictated on : 15.12.2022.
Order transcribed on : 15.12.2022.
Order checked & signed on : 16.12.2022
/home/steno38/Desktop/SSC 151222/160 2022 RAE Exh 23 appl rejected. Exh .odt
-- 4 of 4 --