Bombay High Court
Umesh J. Patel And 3 Ors vs Harishankar Ramchandra Mhatre And 30 ... on 9 October, 2018
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K.R.Shriram
1/3 36.CHS1396.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1396 OF 2016
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.895 OF 2016
IN
SUIT NO.5172 OF 2000
Umesh J.Patel & Ors. )....Plaintiffs/Applicants
V/s.
Harishanker Ramchandra Mhatre & Ors. )....Defendants
----
Ms.Vanita Kakar for plaintiffs/applicants.
Mr.Ajit C.Tamhane I/by Tamhane and Co. for defendant nos.2 & 3.
Ms.Sujata Melekar for defendant nos.17 to 28.
Ms.Swati Parag Gautam for defendant nos.29 & 31.
Mr.Harshad Pimple for MCGM -defendant.
----
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J
DATE : 9.10.2018
P.C.:-
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.895 OF 2016
1. At the outset, Ms.Kakar for appllicants seeks leave to amend the schedule. Leave granted.
2. This Chamber summons is taken out for leave to amend the plaint as per the schedule annexed thereof. What the plaintiffs effectively are seeking is to add a sentence at the end of paragraph 9(i) and to delete prayers (b) & (v).
KJ
2/3 36.CHS1396.16.doc
3. It is stated in the affidavit in support that after the suit was filed, the Development Agreement dated 3.11.1991 is terminated by plaintiff nos.1, 2 & 3 through their Advocate's notice dated 26.4.2016 and called upon defendant nos.29 to 31 to hand over all the documents regarding the same. It has to be noted that defendant nos.29 to 31 are legal heirs of plaintiff no.4. In my view, as plaintiffs are only seeking deletion of certain prayers, and not asking for any prayers to be substituted in the place of prayers to be deleted, no prejudice would be caused to the parties and it also does not change the cause of action.
4. Therefore, leave to amend as per the schedule granted except item 3 in schedule A which is bracketed in red. Amendment to be carried out and amended plaint to be served within one week from today. Should any of defendants wish to file additional written statement, the same to be filed and copy served within two weeks. Chamber summons disposed accordingly.
5. Suit be listed for issues on 19.11.2018. In the meanwhile, parties to also file their respective affidavit of documents, complete discovery and inspection, exchange statement of admission and denial with reasons for denial and on the next date, come with agreed draft KJ 3/3 36.CHS1396.16.doc issues and a separate list of issues on which they are unable to agree.
6. Since the suit is of the year 2000, it is made clear that if above directions are not complied with strictly, parties will not be allowed to rely on any documents other than those, copies whereof are annexed to the plaint/written statement or mentioned in the list of documents annexed to the plaint/written statement. On the next date if parties do not come with agreed draft issues, all the parties will be put to terms.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.895 OF 2016
1. Ms.Kakar for plaintiffs states that the applicants are seeking a direction to the Court Receiver not to entertain the complaint letter dated 19.11.2013 filed/submitted by a 3rd party. The 3rd party is not added to the Notice of Motion. Secondly, Ms.Kakar states that the complaint has already been disposed of by the Court Receiver. Therefore, nothing remains in this Notice of Motion. Notice of Motion disposed accordingly.
Digitally signed (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)
Jahagirdar by Jahagirdar
Kiran Ganesh
Kiran Date:
Ganesh 2018.10.10
23:12:30 +0530
KJ