:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1524 OF 2007 IN UNDEFENDED SUIT NO. 26 OF 1998 Smt. Kamaladevi Kesari Pratapsingh and ors. ..Plaintiffs Vs. Mr. Ashokkumar Ramjanak Singh and ors. ..Defendants Mr. D.H. Mehta i/by Sudhir Shah for plaintiffs. Mr. P.D. Patel for defendant no.5. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : December 11, 2008. Date : December 11, 2008. Date : December 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This Chamber Summons is for amendment of the plaint and it is served on all the defendants as is evident by the affidavit of service. 2. The matter was placed for passing orders. At this stage 5th defendant has appeared through an Advocate and tendered the reply. In the facts peculiar to this case and in the larger interest of :2: justice, I permit the affidavit to be taken on record even at this belated stage. 3. I have heard Mr. Mehta appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.5. 4. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit essentially is a family dispute. Ultimately the family members are trying to get their share in the estate of the deceased. At the time of institution of the suit the plaintiffs were proceeding on the basis that there is one conveyance, but subsequently as is evident from the averments in the affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons, it is discovered that there is alienation of the property in favour of defendant nos.4 and 5 and the conveyance deed bears the said date. In other words, the prayer for cancellation of conveyance deed is already made in the plaint but the said relief has to be elaborated in the manner more particularly set out in the schedule to the Chamber Summons. It is pointed out that the conveyance deed of 17/7/1993 is put in issue but it is :3: stated that there is a prior Indenture of Conveyance dated 31/3/1993 under which defendant nos.1 to 3 have sold the property to defendant no.4. This purported conveyance/indenture was not available at the time of filing of the suit. It is contended that no prejudice will be caused if the averments are permitted to be incorporated as the trial has yet to commence. No Written Statement is filed. 5. Having perused the material, including the affidavit-in-reply, I am satisfied that for a complete resolution of the controversy so also to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, amendment deserves to be granted. Applying even the principles incorporated in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and considering that I am keeping open all pleas, including that of maintainability and limitation for being agitated, no prejudice will be caused, if this Chamber Summons is made absolute. 6. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is clarified that this order does not conclude the merits :4: of the controversy so also would not preclude all defendants from raising appropriate plea, including that the claim of the plaintiffs is time barred and that it is otherwise keeping them open and subject to the same this Chamber Summons is made absolute. Amendments to be carried out on or before 7/1/2009. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)