Allowed

Divine Developers v. Kamla Landmarc Real Estate Holding Pvt. Ltd. and 21 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jun 2023IA/967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Interim Application, the High Court at Bombay allowed an amendment to the plaint in a Commercial Suit. The court held that sufficient cause existed to add pleadings regarding new information received post-suit, noting it did not alter the suit's nature. The amendment was permitted within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Plaintiff permitted to amend plaint within three weeks and serve defendants.

Divine Developers Vs Kamla Landmarc Real… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10_IA_967_23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2023 IN

¶3

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 32 OF 2019

¶4

Divine Developers

¶5

… Applicant/Plaintiff

¶6

vs.

¶7

Kamla Landmarc Real Estate Holding Private Limited and others … Respondents/Defendants

¶8

Mr. Bhavin Gada a/w. Ms. Bhavini Chheda, i/by. Harakhchand & Co. for applicant/plaintiff.

¶9

Ms. Clarissa Miranda, i/by. Vikrant Narkar for respondent/defendant No.8.

¶10

Rochelle Fiona Fernandes, i/by. Mhatre Law Associates for respondent/defendant No.9.

¶11

Ms. Devanshi N. Bafna, i/by. S. K. Legal and Associates for respondent/defendant No.13.

¶12

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 6^th JUNE, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

. By this application, the applicant/plaintiff is seeking amendment to the plaint, whereby the plaintiff seeks to add certain pleadings and also, to amend the prayer clause to make additional prayers.

¶15

Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA KAMBLI KAMBLI Date: 2023.06.07 14:14:29 +0530

¶16

Admittedly, this application is moved at pre-trial stage. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has invited attention of this Court to the contents of the application, particularly paragraph No.9 onwards to state that the pleadings sought to be added by way of amendment, pertain to information received by the plaintiff only in April, 2022. It is stated that the

¶17

1/3

¶18

10_IA_967_23.doc

¶19

partner of the plaintiff was constrained to move an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the concerned officer of MHADA on 08.04.2022, on becoming aware of the fact that the plans in respect of proposed building moved by defendant No.9 were already approved in June, 2017.

¶20

It is further stated in the application as to the responses received from MHADA in connection with the application submitted by the partner of the plaintiff-firm.

¶21

On the basis of such information received in April, 2022, the plaintiff is seeking amendment of the plaint to add pleadings as stated in the schedule and also to add additional prayers, particularly against defendant No.9.

¶22

This Court is satisfied that the amendments sought on behalf of the plaintiff, do not change the nature of the suit and, in fact, raise additional pleadings in furtherance of the reliefs sought in the suit. The pleadings sought to be added by way of amendment would justify the additional prayers sought to be raised in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.

¶23

The learned counsel for the defendants could not demonstrate as to why such a pre-trial application ought not to be granted.

¶24

This Court is satisfied that sufficient cause is made out by the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint, as per the schedule attached to the application.

¶25

2/3

¶26

10_IA_967_23.doc

¶27

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as per the schedule attached to the application. Amendment be carried out within three weeks from today.

¶28

The plaintiff shall serve the amended pleadings on the defendants within three weeks of carrying out such amendment.

¶29

Application stands disposed of.

¶30

(MANISH PITALE, J)

¶31

Priya Kambli

¶32

3/3

Divine Developers v. Kamla Landmarc Real Estate Holding Pvt. Ltd. and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divine Developers v. Kamla Landmarc Real Estate Holding Pvt. Ltd. and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Reliance Industries Ltd.

Kavis Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Dimple Enterprises and 3 Others

Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. - Applicant Vs Super Cassettes Industries Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Parvez Rafiq Ahmed Momin and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Loran Leasing and Infotech Private Limited Vs Play Games 24 x 7 Private Limited

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited vs Manish Verma