Allowed

Swaran S. Chawla v. Mukesh S. Chawla

Bombay HC11 Aug 2010CHS/1013/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Chamber Summons allowed plaintiff's application to amend plaint to challenge a Gift Deed executed via fraud. Court held that limitation bar was not sustainable due to plaintiff's lack of notice and allowed temporary injunction.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute; Plaintiff permitted to amend plaint, serve defendant, and apply for ad-interim relief; Temporary injunction granted restraining sale of suit flat and shop.

Swaran S. Chawla Vs Mukesh S. Chawla — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2010)

chs1013-10.sxw

pps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

Chamber Summons No.1013 of 2010 . in

¶6

Suit No. 1098 of 2010

¶7

Mrs.Swaran Sikandarlal Chawla .. Plaintiff

¶8

v/s.

¶9

Mr.Mukesh Sikandarlal Chawla ..Defendant

¶10

Mr.D.P.Shah for Applicant/ Plaintiff. Mr.R.K.Singhfor the Defendant

¶11

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11^th August , 2010

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned Advocates on both sides at the stage of final

¶14

hearing of the Chamber Summons. At the ad-interim hearing of

¶15

the notice of motion No.1556 of 2010 it was brought to the notice

¶16

of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has executed a Gift Deed dated

¶17

24.12.2006 in favour of the defendant and therefore the defendant

¶18

is full owner of the property after the said Gift Deed. After

¶19

having come to know about this development, keeping in view the

¶20

chs1013-10.sxw

¶21

¶22

case of the plaintiff that signature on certain papers were obtained by the defendant by practising fraud upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff has chosen to take out this Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint, ultimately to challenge the Gift Deed as mentioned aforesaid.

¶23

I have gone through the pleadings and for the reasons to follow I am inclined to allow the chamber summons. The principal objection raised was viz, the amendment if granted would bring the cause of action within the period of limitation which has otherwise lapsed. There is no substance in this argument, because the plaintiff had no notice of the fact that the Gift Deed is being obtained from her. It has been the case of the plaintiff that fraud was practised upon her by the defendant, and her signature was obtained on certain documents. The nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant came to surface only when affidavit came to be filed in December 2009. If this be so, amendment of the plaint so as to challenge the Gift Deed would be within the period of limitation. To that extent argument

¶24

chs1013-10.sxw

¶25

¶26

advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant is required to

¶27

be rejected. Looking to the affidavit and schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons I am inclined to observe that the plaintiff must get a chance to plead her case after she has come to know about the execution of gift deed. In order to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to put her case in the proper perspective the Chamber Summons is required to be granted. Hence I pass the following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

ii) Plaintiff to carry out the amendment on or before 3.9.2010.

¶31

Plaintiff to serve amended copy of the plaint upon the defendant on or before 9.9.2010. Plaintiff to apply for ad-interim reliefs in terms of the motion on the basis of the amended plaint on 14.9.2010. Accordingly, matter to appear for ad-interim hearing on 14.9.2010.

¶32

chs1013-10.sxw

¶33

¶34

iii) Till 14.9.2010 defendant shall not sale or dispose of the suit

¶35

flat and the suit shop.

¶36

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Swaran S. Chawla v. Mukesh S. Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaran S. Chawla v. Mukesh S. Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs Dr. V.K. Shetty and Ors.

Jinang Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. and 12 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 5 Ors.

Vishnu Khandelwal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Manisha Sanjay Waskar Vs Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan(Panari) and Ors.

Junot Chagas Pereira and Ors. Vs Omprakash Navani and Ors.

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra