1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.1626 of 2009 with Chamber Summons No.1627 of 2009 in Suit No.2007 of 2009 Ramesh Pandurang Waghe ..Plaintiff vs. Kamlini Raghunath Geete and ors ..Defendants Mr.Dinesh Kumar Seth i/b Mr.Abhimanyu Vir Bhavan for plaintiff in support Ms.G.P.Shah i/b Arvind Rathod and Co. for defendant nos.1 and 4 Mr.Bimal Bhabhda i/b M/s Apte and Co. for defendant no.5 Mr.S.Purohit i/b A.V.Jain and Associates for proposed defendant nos. 6, 7 and 8 CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J. 7th December, 2009 P.C. 1 These chamber summonses are for amendment of the plaint. In Chamber Summons No.1627 of 2007 the prayer is that the 2 respondents (proposed defendant nos.6, 7 and 8) be added as party defendants to the suit. This request is made on the basis that the suit is for administration of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to his lawful share as provided under the Will of the deceased. Therefore, the Court should pass an appropriate order and direction with regard to administration of his estate. Further, a declaration is sought that the plaintiff has right to claim his 50% share. 2 It is a common ground that originally the plaint raised a claim to the property at Vile Parle, Mumbai. 3 It is stated in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons No. 1627 of 2009 that the plaintiff has learnt after institution of this suit that defendant nos.2 and 3 have further sold the property to the respondents by conveyance deed dated 21st 3 May, 2009. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint so as to bring on record the details of this transaction/conveyance to impugn it and to have the parties affected thereby impleaded as party defendants. 4 The request is not opposed by the original defendants but by the respondents. An affidavit in reply is filed and Mr.Purohit on their behalf contends that the suit claim is hopelessly time barred. As far as the respondents are concerned the respondents are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and without any notice. The plaintiff is negligent and has permitted the first defendant to sell the property to second defendant in the year 2005 and thereafter by 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly to the respondents. 5 Lastly, it is urged that the cause of action in the original suit is on the basis of administration of the estate. Now, 4 the suit would be converted into a suit for possession by impugning the conveyance. That is a distinct cause of action and has no connection with the original claim. Therefore, the chamber summons be dismissed. 6 I do not see merit in any of these contentions. Firstly, the conveyance in favour of the respondents is stated to be dated 21st May, 2009. Secondly, and in any event, the law is well settled. The amendment can be allowed subject to bar of limitation being kept open. Thirdly Vile Parle property is mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. It is stated to be covered by the Will of the deceased and thereafter now has been dealt with. The original claim is for administration of the estate of the deceased based on the share of the plaintiff therein. In such circumstances, the plaintiff could have very well brought the independent suit but having found that the claim is in tact, 5 that one of the properties under the Will/Schedule to the plaint is being dealt with, then, events leading upto the said conveyance or dealing with and parties to the said dealing/transaction should be included is the request. One of the purpose of granting amendment and liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In these circumstances, I do not see how the amendment would cause any prejudice. Thus, there is no merit in the contention that there is any change of cause of action. The relief is the same. It is only some events and dealings/transactions which are placed on record and naturally being questioned. In these circumstances, the last objection also is without any substance. 8 Consequently, both the chamber summonses are allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) but without any order as to costs. All contentions of both 6 sides on the plea of maintainability, limitation and merits are kept open. Amendment is allowed subject to the same. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)