1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1857 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3027 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO. 2934 OF 2004 Ms. Asha Ravi .. Plaintiff VS. Mr. Hariprasad Ramdhani Dube & Anr. .. Defendants. Mr. Abhinandan Vagyani for the plaintiff. Mr. R.K. Singh for defendant. CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2004 P.C. 1. The present chamber summons is for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant opposes the amendment on two grounds. Firstly, he states that the name of the plaintiff is wrongly described in the chamber summons. I do not find so. The name described in the chamber summons is the same name as described in the plaint and, therefore, the said objection has no substance. 2 2. In so far as the second objection is concerned that the application for amendment seeks to substitute Exhibit A to the plaint by a different document, it is the contention of the defendant that both the documents should be allowed to be kept on record and should not be permitted to be substituted. I do not find any substance in the said contention. It is for the plaintiff to decide which document to rely upon 3. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs.