The court allowed amendment of the plaint to enhance damages. It dismissed applications for deletion of defendants and dismissal of suit due to absence of applicants and want of prosecution.
Amendment to plaint allowed. Chamber Summons Nos. 1920 of 2009, 1705 of 2011, 52 of 2014 and Notice of Motion No. 392 of 2010 dismissed.
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.
68-CHS-16552011.DOC
Ars
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1655 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 3827 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1920 OF 2009
AND
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1705 OF 2011
AND
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 52 OF 2014
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 392 OF 2010
Parasmal U. Jain…Plaintiffs
Versus
Chandrakant Hari Thatte & Ors.…Defendants
Mr.Sujeet Kurup, a/w Ms. Seema Chopda, for the Plaintiffs.
Nonefor the Defendants
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:28th April 2014
PC:-
1.This is the plaintiff’s Chamber Summons for amendment of
the plaint. Several paragraphs are sought to be added. The plaintiff
1 of 2
68-CHS-16552011.DOC
seek to enhance his claim for damages. Written statements have not
been filed by all the defendants. Issues have not yet been framed. The
trial, therefore, cannot be said to have started. In any event this is, so
far, an undefended suit (although there is an application for having a
written statement taken on file and which I will deal with separately).
2.In this view of the matter, there can be no objection to the
grant of the reliefs sought in the Chamber Summons. Chamber
Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment
to be carried out on or before 16th May 2014. Suit to be listed for
directions on 16th June 2014.
3.Chamber Summons No.1920 of 2009, Chamber Summons
No. 1705 of 2011, Chamber Summons No. 52 of 2014 and Notice
of Motion No. 392 of 2010 are all filed by one or more of defendants
no. 3 to 6. In some of these, the relief sought is that defendants no. 3
to 6 be ordered to be deleted as party defendants and that the suit be
dismissed against them. There are also applications for leave to file
their written statements. Despite these matter having been adjourned
at least twice, none of these defendants are present in Court today.
The applications ought, therefore, to be dismissed outright. There is
no cause shown for the absence of the defendants. All these Chamber
Summonses and the Notice of Motion are dismissed for want of
prosecution.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of plaint can be allowed before trial starts.
Whether applications for deletion of defendants and dismissal can be decided in absence of parties.
Parasmal U. Jain
Chandrakant Hari Thatte
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court