Allowed application for amendment to pleadings under a Chamber Summons, holding that relevant averments existed in the Plaint and amendment was in the interest of justice.
Proposed amendment to the Chamber Summons granted for reliefs in prayer clauses (a) to (c).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.59 OF 2005
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.466 OF 2004
Hemlata Harish Bhatia & Anr. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Vallabhdas Lalchand Dhamanmal
& Ors. ...Defendants
Ms.Pathak i/b M/s.Pathak Associates for
Applicants/Plaintiffs.
Mr.Manish Gite i/b Vijaykumar & Co.for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
AUGUST 16, 2005.
P.C.
1. None for the Applicants. Dismissed for
default.
******
2. Later on, matter was mentioned after lunch
break by Ms.Pathak, Advocate on record for
: 2 :
Applicants, submitting that at the relevant time,
she was held up in some other Court. Apology
tendered is accepted. Hence, matter restored to
the file.
3. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused
the pleadings.
4. In my opinion, proposed amendment in terms
of Schedule to the Chamber Summons as prayed for,
ought to be granted. This is so because relevant
averments are already incorporated in the Plaint as
filed, in particular from Paragraphs 12 onwards.
Therefore, there is substance in the stand taken on
behalf of the Applicants that the relief now
claimed by way of proposed amendment have not been
mentioned in the Plaint due to inadvertence.
5. To get over this position, Counsel for the
Defendants would contend that the case as made out
in the Plaint was dealt with by the Defendants in
the reply affidavit to the Notice of Motion No.502
of 2004 taken out by the Plaintiffs. However,
after pleadings were complete, the Plaintiffs
: 3 :
withdrew the said Notice of Motion on 10th December
2004. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendants
that in this backdrop, amendment as prayed ought
not to be granted.
6. I see no substance in this objection. The
question before me is whether proposed amendment
ought to be granted. In my opinion, as mentioned
earlier, in the interest of justice, the Applicants
are entitled for reliefs claimed in prayer clauses
(a) to (c).
7. Chamber Summons accordingly made absolute
in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). Amendments
be carried out within four weeks from today. No
order as to costs.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proposed amendment to the pleadings ought to be granted despite the withdrawal of a Notice of Motion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hemlata Harish Bhatia & Anr.
Vallabhdas Lalchand Dhamanmal
A.M. KHAHWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court