In a suit, the High Court of Bombay allowed an amendment to the plaint to add the heirs of a deceased defendant and dismissed the request for a stay of such order.
Chamber Summons made absolute; application for six-week stay of operation of the order declined.
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.
40-CHS710-13
VISHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.710 OF 2013
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1655 OF 2011
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1705 OF 2011
WITH
JUDGES ORDER NO.255 OF 2013
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.353 OF 2013
IN
SUIT NO.3827 OF 2003
Parasmal Uttamchand Jain & Anr.
Versus
Chandrakant Hari Thatte & Ors.
…Plaintiffs
...Defendants
Mr.Sujeet Kurup for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Shashank Thatte for the Defendant No.2 in person.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: MARCH 03, 2014
PC:-
1.Chamber Summons No. 710 of 2013 is filed by the original
plaintiff for a formal amendment to bring on record the heirs of the
original defendant No.6 who passed away on 21st January 2013.
1 of 4
40-CHS710-13
The only amendment sought is to the title of the suit and to in
paragraph 1 of the plaint describing the newly added defendants as
the heirs of the original defendant No.6.
2.The 2nd defendant to the suit is Mr. Shashank Thatte, a
practising advocate of this Court. The 1st defendant is his father.
Mr. Shashank Thatte says, with some degree of persistence, that he
is without legal recourse or remedy, and seeks adjournment. I am
unable to see how he is in any way prejudiced by the grant of relief
as sought in this Chamber Summons.
3.It is true that there are several proceedings pending. I am not
considering any of the others. On 1st July 2013 all these were listed
before this Court. Jamdar, J., too, observed that in this Chamber
Summons at least it would be appropriate if the heirs of defendant
No.6 are brought on record. Following that order, the plaintiff’s
advocate has been furnished with the name of defendant No.6’s
heirs.
4.Mr. Shashank Thatte says that he has filed Review Petition
against the order dated 1st July 2013, and even an appeal against the
order on the Review Petition. There is, however, no order staying
the hearing of this Chamber Summons. Indeed, I cannot see how
defendant No.1 and 2 could in any way be prejudiced by the heirs of
6th defendant being brought on record.
5.So as to ensure that all Mr. Shashank Thatte’s apprehensions
and anxieties, whatever these may be, are suitably assuaged, it is
made clear that this order is without prejudice to all of Mr.
2 of 4
40-CHS710-13
Shashank Thatte’s rights including his contentions in the suit as
filed originally against 6th defendant and now proposed to be
continued against the heirs of 6th defendant. No further protection
than this can be envisaged so far as defendants No. 1 and 2 are
concerned. This order is also only without prejudice to any
application made by the 1st and 2nd defendant for dismissal of the
suit against them.
6. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
7. At this stage Mr. Shashank Thatte seeks a stay of the operation of the order in chamber summons for six weeks. The application declined. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today.
8. The following application are among those still pending:
(a) Chamber Summons No.1655 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff seeking other amendments to the plaint.(b) Chamber Summons No.1075 of 2011 for an order that the suit be dismissed against Defendants Nos.3 to 6(c) Chamber Summons (L) No.353 of 2013 also filed by defendant No.1 and 2 for written statement being taken on file.3 of 4
40-CHS710-13
(d) Judge’s Order No. 255 of 2013 filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 for discharge of their present advocates.9.All these applications, as also all other pending interlocutory
applications , are adjourned to 2nd April 2014.
10.Copies of the various applications filed by the 1st and 2nd
defendants shall be provided by Mr.Shashank Thatte to the other
parties no later than 18th March 2014.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a formal amendment to the plaint to bring on record the heirs of a deceased defendant.
Whether to grant a stay of the order amending the plaint.
Parasmal Uttamchand Jain & Anr.
Chandrakant Hari Thatte & Ors.
G. S. Patel, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court