1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9862 of 2009 Sneha Gupta ....Petitioner v/s. Dhanalaxmi Builders & ors. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9871 of 2009 Ashish Kumar Kataruka .....Petitioner v/s. Dhanalaxmi Builders & ors. .....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 of 2008 Gupta Paper House Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner v/s. Dhanalaxmi Builders & ors. ....Respondents Mr.Nitin G. Thakkar, Sr. Advocate with G.C.Mohanty i/b. Kirit Damania & co. for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiren Shah i/b. Vimlal & co. for respondents 1-3. Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin i/b. Sheela Mistry for respondents 4-6. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- January 07, 2010. 2 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Dhiren Shah waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin waives service for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 3. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. These Petitions under Article 227 take exception to the Judgments and orders passed by the City Civil Court and 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, Borivali Division dated 14th August, 2009 in Chamber Summons No. 87/2007 in SC Suit No. 5924/2003, Chamber Summons No. 86/2007 in S.C.Suit No. 5925/2003 and Chamber Summons No. 85/2007 in S.C. Suit No. 5922/2003. By these orders the trial Court has dismissed the Chamber Summons whereby the Petitioners-plaintiffs wanted the suits to be amended in view of the subsequent development. The trial Court has recorded reasons while completely ignoring the fact that in companion five suits, the Court has already allowed the amendment in the respective suits. Moreover, the said 3 order allowing amendment was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition Nos. 1673/2006, 1674/2006, 1675/2006,1677/2006 and 1678/2006 which were disposed of by order dated 14th March, 2006. Indeed, this Court has kept the question regarding the correctness of the said order open to be examined in the Appeal, if required to be filed by the Writ Petitioners against the final judgment and decree. 5. Having regard to the fact that in all the 8 suits, the claim is in respect of premises situated in the same building, the approach of the Court atleast for the limited purpose of considering the request for amendment of plaint ought to be consistent. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, I think it appropriate to allow these Writ Petitions and set aside the impugned Judgments and orders. Instead the Chamber Summons filed by the Petitioners before the trial Court i.e. Chamber Summons No. 87/2007, 86/2007 & 85/2007 are made absolute. The Petitioners will have to carry out amendment in the suits in terms of this order within three weeks from today. 6. It is, however, made clear that this order does not finally decide the question regarding any prejudice caused to the Respondents-Defendants on account of amendment as that question can be agitated by the Respondents- 4 Defendants in the appeal to be filed against the final Judgment and decree and will have to be considered on its own merits in the said proceedings in accordance with law. That approach will be consistent with the order passed by this Court in the companion five matters on 14th March, 2006 referred to above. 7. At this stage, Counsel appearing for the parties make a joint request that the trial Court be directed to expedite the hearing of the suits as was expected in terms of order dated 22nd January, 2009. That request is accepted. However, the period specified in the said order shall commence from the date of this order in so far as the present matters are concerned. 8. In so far as the present three suits are concerned, the Counsel appearing for the Respondents-Defendants submits that the Defendants would file written- statement within two weeks from the date of service of amended plaint. That assurance is accepted. 9. All these Petitions are disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J) 5