Allowed

Abbas H Shahpurwala v. Mohaatta Builders Adn Associates and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2007CHS/1417/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this chamber summons proceeding, the court condoned a four-year delay in filing an application to amend the plaint. The plaintiff sought to delete a deceased defendant and add their legal heirs, unaware of the death until recently. The court granted the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons declared absolute to allow deletion of defendant 4 and addition of their legal heirs in the plaint.

Abbas H Shahpurwala Vs Mohaatta Builders Adn… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1417 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.4005 OF 1996

¶4

Abbas H. Shahpurwala ... Plaintiff

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Mohatta Builders & Associates & Ors. ... Defendants

¶7

Ms. Ambareen Saheed i/b M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the plaintiffs.

¶8

Ms. Neeta Solanki i/b Mr. K.P. Jain for defendants 3 and 5.

¶9

Mr. J.B. Mitra i/b Mr. A.S. Khatib for defendant 6.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶11

DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2007.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

This chamber summons is not on board. It is taken on board

¶14

by consent of the parties.

¶15

This chamber summons is filed by the plaintiff praying that

¶16

AJN

¶17

¶18

the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint by deleting the name of defendant 4 and adding the name of the heirs of defendant 4 in place and stead of defendant 4 as set out in Schedule “A” to the chamber summons. Affidavit in support of the chamber summons is filed by Mr. Tayeb Sohagpurwala, the constituted attorney of the plaintiff.

¶19

It appears that there is about four years' delay in filing this chamber summons. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the plaintiff has got transferred the instant suit to the present advocates M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co. in or about August, 2005. It is further stated that the plaintiff was, at no point of time, aware of defendant 4 having expired till filing of the written statement of defendants 3 and 5. It is further stated that the plaintiff was not informed in respect of the heirs of defendant 4. According to the plaintiff, no information in respect thereof was also made available to the present advocates from the papers and proceedings handed over to the advocates for the plaintiff from the erstwhile advocates of the plaintiff. It is further stated that on 17/8/2007, the plaintiff's

¶20

¶21

AJN

¶22

advocates were informed that defendant 4 had expired on 9/12/2003. The plaintiff has thereafter filed this chamber summons. In the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, delay deserves to be condoned and the chamber summons needs to be granted. Hence, the following order.

¶23

Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendments to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Chamber summons is disposed of.

¶24

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

Abbas H Shahpurwala v. Mohaatta Builders Adn Associates and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas H Shahpurwala v. Mohaatta Builders Adn Associates and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashinath Jayram Rakshe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtr

Baliram Gopinath Sakhare Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Prakash Hanmant Jadhav Vs Vishal Ganpati Salunkhe and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Alister Anthony Pareira

Shri Ram Fibres Ltd. Vs M/S. T.T. Blades and Anr.

mr vijay sharma and Anr. Vs union of india and Anr.