Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
CNR NO.MHSCA-30008412024
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.27
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO.300 OF 2024
Smt. Kantadevi Kailashpati Gupta . . Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Anita Ghanshyam Maurya and ors. . . Defendants.
Coram : A.S. Pandagle, Judge
C.R.No.37
Date : 7/3/2026.
ORAL ORDER :
1. Perused the application and say filed thereon.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Present application is filed on behalf of plaintiff for
amendment in the plaint. By filing present application it is
contended by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit,
MCGM issued notice under Section 351 of Municipal Corporation
Act, 1888 and also notice under the Maharashtra Regional Town
Panning Act, 1966, to the occupier of the suit premises for illegal
construction in the suit property dated 27/5/2025 respectively. After
giving opportunity of being heard, Municipal Corporation passed two
speaking orders dated 18/7/2025 with direction to pull down the
notice structure. The said order dated 18/7/2025 was challenged
unlawful occupants inducted by the defendant No.1 to 4 before the
Hon’ble City Civil Court, Dindoshi through two suits being Suit
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Mar-26/E-27-RAE-300-2024 (amendment).odt
-- 1 of 5 --
2
No.1702 of 2025 between Phoolchand Fulchandra Ramkhilawan
Mourya Vs. MCGM (K/E Ward) and Civil Suit No.1716 of 2025
between Phoolchand Fulchandra Ramkhilawan Mourya Vs. MCGM
(K/E Ward). The said unlawful occupant and trespasser Mr.
Phoolchand Mourya @ Fulchandra Mourya has also filed one more
suit for injunction and claiming in possession of the suit premises
against the plaintiff excluding defendants herein being Civil Suit
No.2761 of 2024 between Fulchandra Ramkhilawan Mourya Vs.
Kantadevi Gupta. In the said injunction suit against the plaintiff, said
Mr. Phoolchand Mourya @ Fulchandra Mourya claiming himself and
his family members alone to be in possession of the suit premises
excluding the defendant No.1 to 4. During the pendency of all the
above suit on 25/9/2025 MCGM executed the order dated
18/7/2025 passed by the designated officer in two notices, notice
No.KE/DO1KE/072/55-MRTP Act/KE251NO1/27-05-2025 dated
27/5/2025 and notice No.KE/DO1KE/072/351-MMC Act/
KE249NO1/27-5-2025 by following due process of law. During the
pendency of the suit, the said unlawful occupant inducted by
defendant No.1 to 4 with collusion with defendant No.1 to 4 further
illegally sublet the suit premises to one J.K.Holding through its
partner Mr. Krishnakumar Shivganesh Dubey by way of Deed of
Assignment of tenancy dated 20/9/2025 entered between between
Mr. Phoolchand Maurya @ Fulchandra Mourya and J.K. Holding.
Even the demolition report of the Corporation shows only J. K.
Holding who was occupying the suit premises at the time of
execution of order dated 18/7/2025. Further the new unlawful
occupant i.e. J.K. Holding also addressed various communications to
the MCGM and the plaintiff claiming to be new tenant in respect of
the suit premises and in possession and occupation of the suit
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Mar-26/E-27-RAE-300-2024 (amendment).odt
-- 2 of 5 --
3
premises. Suit seeking declaration of tenancy in respect of the suit
premises against the plaintiff being RAD Suit No.334 of 2025
between Phoolchand Ramkhilawan Maurya Vs. Smt. Kantadevi
Gupta before the Small Causes Court, Bandra, is bogus and malicious
suit. Above all incidents, information and documents came into the
light of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The same is
subsequent event and information which were purposely suppressed
by the defendant No.1 to 4 before this Court, therefore the same is
required to be incorporated in the plaint. Therefore submitted that
application as prayed may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, defendant No.2 by filing reply below
Exh.31 resisted the application and contended that application is
collusive, malafide, filed with ulterior motive to defeat the rights of
the defendant. The proposed defendant is not proper and necessary
party to the present suit. The proposed defendant has no locus-
standi in the present suit. Proposed amendment and implement of
respondent alter the nature of the suit. Therefore submitted that
application may be rejected.
5. Proposed defendant by filing reply below Exh.30
contended that the proposed defendant have no objection to for
becoming the party to the suit as it is their right to defend their
possession, right, title and interest in the suit property.
6. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff in advance of argument
relied upon following cited case law :
1] The State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Pam Developments Private
Limited and ors. reported in 2025(3) SCC 356,
2] Teodolinda Dias Mandoly C. Viegas and others Vs. Laurie
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Mar-26/E-27-RAE-300-2024 (amendment).odt
-- 3 of 5 --
4
Hermegeild Pereira and others reported in 2013 (5)
Mh.L.J.822,
3] Manisha Rajeev Chowdhary & Anr. Vs. Makarand Dinkar Gupte
& ors. in Interim Application No.1750 of 2021 in Suit No.444
of 2019 decided on 6/9/2022,
4] Madhukar Vs. Jyoti and ors. in Writ Petition No.6120 of 2022
decided on 4/11/2025,
5] Miss. Laleh Ardeshir Dubhash and ors. Vs. Mr. Swaraj
Shrikumar Hate and ors. reported in 2024 (4) ALL MR 543,
6] M/s. Bharat Travellers Vs. Smt. Sumitrabai Vinayakrao Buty
reported in 2017 (5) ALL MR 646,
and submitted that amendment of plaint in civil suit permissible
when subsequent events for to continuous cause of action and do not
alter the nature and character of the original suit. Also submitted
that the Court has to take liberal view in allowing application for
amendment which is necessary to decide the matter in controversy.
7. After hearing both sides, gone through the contents of
the application and reply filed thereon, also gone through the record
of the proceedings, by way of this application plaintiff seeking
amendment in the plaint and also wants to implead propose
defendant as a party defendant No.5 in this suit. Whatever the
contents are given in para 2,3 of the application are the subsequent
events occurred after filing of the suit are required to be brought on
record by way of making amendment in the plaint. Proposed
amendment is outcome from the subsequent events, it does not
change the nature of the suit, no harm or prejudice will be caused to
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Mar-26/E-27-RAE-300-2024 (amendment).odt
-- 4 of 5 --
5
the defendants, if the application is allowed. Hence, I proceed to
pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to carry out
amendment as per Schedule annexed with
this application, within stipulated time.
Bandra - Mumbai. ( A.S. Pandagle )
Date : 7/3/2026. Judge, C.R.No.37.
.
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Mar-26/E-27-RAE-300-2024 (amendment).odt
-- 5 of 5 --