Shakuntala Parshuram Patil and Ors. v. Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014CHS/137/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber summons application was allowed to amend the plaint to delete averments regarding possession under the Bombay Tenancy Act and substitute prayers claiming possession against defendants in actual possession. The plaintiffs were also ordered to bear the defendants' costs of Rs.15,000.

What did the court decide?

Ord. VII Rule 11 CPC application made absolute to delete existing possession averments and add new prayers demanding possession from defendants who are in possession.

Shakuntala Parshuram Patil and Ors. Vs Nahalchand… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

chs 137-2014.doc

1/2

sat

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

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 137 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO. 162 OF 2014

¶6

Shakuntala Parshuram Patil & Ors. …Applicants / Plaintiffs vs. Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants

¶7

Mr.A.R. Shaikh i/b. Mr.S.D. Mishra for Plaintiffs. Mr.R.N. Kachare i/b. Mr.Amit Palkar for Defendant Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Shrikant R. Bagade for Defendant No.5.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶9

07 JULY 2014

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint inter alia by adding averments and prayer for possession of the suit property as well as interim prayer for injunction against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from selling, transferring or disposing of, or creating third party rights in respect of, the suit property.

¶12

2 The Chamber Summons is filed on the basis that after the suit was filed and a Notice of Motion was taken out by the Plaintiffs, learned Counsel for Defendant Nos.1 to 3 made a statement that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession the suit property. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that upon inquiries made with the City Survey Office and other authorities, the Plaintiffs learnt that the buildings constructed on the suit property are constructed by Defendant Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to delete their averments in the suit concerning the Plaintiffs' possession of the suit property by virtue of their being protected under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and instead, seek to incorporate new prayers on the basis that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession of the suit property.

chs 137-2014.doc

2/2

sat

3 The Chamber Summons is opposed by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that the averments, which are sought to be added in the plaint, are false. Truth or falsehood of the averments, which are sought to be incorporated in the plaint, is a matter of trial and will be decided at the hearing of the suit. Presently, there is a case for amendment of the plaint by allowing the Plaintiffs to delete their averments and incorporate new prayers, as noted above.

¶17

4 Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶18

5 The Plaintiffs shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Defendants.

Shakuntala Parshuram Patil and Ors. v. Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Parshuram Patil and Ors. v. Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Bank Vs Maker Development Services Pvt. Ltd.

Gaurav G. Rajpurohit Vs Bharat M. Parekh and 3 Ors.

Zahreer Feroze Panthaki Vs Lachman Chaturbhuj Java and Ors.

M/S. Girnar Residency Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed)and Ors. Vs M/S. Shradha Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.

Sudarshan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tadeshwar Wadi Chs Dltd. and 5 Ors. and Amol Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Shivraj Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sandeep S. Trasikar and Ors.