1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1666 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1565 OF 1998 Praful M. Clark .. Plaintiff Versus Mrs.Madhuri Harish Kothari and Anr. .. Defendants Ms.Uma Sharma for plaintiff Mr.N.Parikh i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11th February 2009. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for parties. Perused the chamber summons and affidavit in support. There is no reply filed. However, it is contended that after a period of about Nine years this chamber summons is moved for amending the written statement. The matter has been placed for trial, inasmuch as, the affidavit in 2 lieu of examination in chief of the plaintiff has been filed. In such circumstances, belated request for amendment to W.S. should not be granted. 2. Mr.Parekh in support states that all that the defendant wish to place on record is their plea that suit is barred by the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders (Unification and Amendment) Act, 1959. That plea is not specifically raised and, therefore, it may be allowed to be raised. The plea can be decided and presently there is no prejudice as the trial has not commenced. 3. In the peculiar facts of this case, the request to amend the written statement is granted. W.S. be allowed to be amended in terms of the schedule. Chamber summons is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks. However, after the W.S. is amended 3 defendants to serve amended W.S. on plaintiffs’ Advocate within two weeks. Place the matter for directions with regard to framing of additional issues and directions as regards the trial on 5th March 2009. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)