Allowed

Vimal Builders v. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2013CHS/261/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted an absolute order to amend Form A of a suit for specific performance to include reference to a Deed of Settlement executed on 25th October 2007. The court held this subsequent event was material to the claim and allowed the plaintiff to carry out amendments within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons is made absolute; Plaintiff granted two weeks to amend plaint and serve amended copy on defendants; Defendant No.41 Society granted 30 days to file further Written Statement.

Vimal Builders Vs Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Ors. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

CHS No.261_2013

jsn

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

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.261 OF 2013

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.2715 OF 2007

¶8

Vimal Builders	--	Applicant /
		Plaintiff
V/s.
Nand Kumar Anant Vaity & Ors.	--	Defendants
AND
Prabhakar P. Shetty & Ors.	--	Respondents

¶9

Mr. Simil Purohit, Adv. i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ponvel Nadarajan, Representative of Defendant No.41.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Chamber Summons is for amendment of the plaint based upon the subsequent events. The subsequent event is the execution of the Deed of Settlement dated 25^th October, 2007 between members of defendant No.41 society and the partners of defendant No.40. The Deed of Settlement came to be executed pursuant to earlier development agreement and sale deed. The rights of the parties came to be crystalised under the Deed of Settlement. These are between defendant No.41 Society and defendant No.40 through whom the Plaintiff claimed.

¶12

The Plaintiff has sued for specific performance of their agreement with defendant No.40. The Plaintiff has sought to show how pursuant to the Deed of Settlement defendant No.40 came to be entitled to the rights of the members of the society defendant No.41. Upon such entitlement the Plaintiffs seek their rights under the

CHS No.261_2013

jsn

agreement which is sought to be specifically enforced.

¶17

The Deed of Settlement may be taken to be an evidence leading to the rights claimed by the Plaintiff. The Deed of Settlement which was executed on 25^th October, 2007 pursuant to which the Plaintiff's agreement was sought to be terminated would be material to consider in the suit.

¶18

The representative of defendant No.41 Society states that the Deed of Settlement was annexed to their affidavit in an earlier proceeding which was filed in November, 2011. Hence the Plaintiffs got notice of this Deed of Settlement in November, 2011. The Plaintiff has inspected the documents later. The Plaintiff has now sought to challenge the Deed of Settlement. In fact the Plaintiff's claim its rights pursuant to the Deed of Settlement. It is, therefore, a mere subsequent event.

¶19

The amendments sought for by the Plaintiffs are required to be allowed. The case of the parties would be adjudged upon the merits of the claim considering the Deed of Settlement relied upon by defendant No.41 society and later Plaintiff itself. Hence Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer 'a'.

¶20

The Plaintiff shall carry out amendments within two weeks in the plaint as well as the copy of the plaint served upon all the defendants.

¶21

Defendant No.41 shall be entitled to file further Written Statement within 30 days of their copy of the plaint being amended by the Plaintiff. Defendant No.41 society shall also be entitled to file a further affidavit in support of its Notice of Motion.

¶22

Notice of Motion is adjourned to 29^th April, 2013.

¶23

( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Vimal Builders v. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Builders v. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity 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

M/S. Madhu Fantasy Land P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. Vs Kadir Yakub Patrawala and 31 Ors.

M/S. Alpine Stamping Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Mr. Shantilal Chunilal Parakh and Anr.

Kailash Nath Gupta Vs Mrs. Jayashree Jagdish Gupta and Others

Kailash Nath Gupta Vs Mrs. Jayashree Jagdish Gupta