{1} chs1695-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1695 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.209 OF 2009 M/s.Supra Enterprise .. Plaintiff versus M/s.Bygging India Ltd .. Defendant Mr.Cyrus Ardhesir a/w Nilesh Modi a/w Chhaya Asher i/by Rustamji Ginwala for the plaintiff. Mr.Gaurav Mehta i/by B.N.Bhabhda for the defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13th December 2011. P.C.: . This is a chamber summons for amendment. The chamber summons is filed in a summary suit. 2} In the affidavit in support of this chamber summons what has been stated is that the plaint be permitted to be amended in the light of the fact that certain events which transpired in the Delhi High Court have been set out in the plaint. The references to those events are now {2} chs1695-09.doc proposed to be deleted. 3} Further, relying upon those events what the plaintiff is seeking is to take assistance and benefit of section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is only an attempt to show that the claim in the suit is not barred by limitation and as a matter of abundant caution, that in terms of the schedule the amendment is proposed and by deleting the earlier para 46 and by substituting the new para carrying the same number. No prejudice will be caused nor there will be any injury to the defendant. 4} In the affidavit in reply of the defendant what has been set out is that the chamber summons is highly belated. The suit is filed on 6th December 2008 while this chamber summons is filed on 6th October 2009, which is after lapse of more than six months. Apart from inordinate and unexplained delay, what has been stated is that the application for rejection of the plaint was made on the ground that the High Court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Upon that application, ultimately, the plaintiff applied for return of plaint and instituted the instant suit. They were aware through out that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Therefore, it {3} chs1695-09.doc is not the case of any bonafides. In such circumstances and when the claim is hopelessly time barred, that the amendment is proposed which would vitally affect the defence of the defendants on the point of limitation. 5} After hearing Mr.Ardesir appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.Mehta appearing for the defendant at some length and perusing with their assistance the chamber summons and affidavit in support, I am of the view that merely because the substitution of para 46 is permitted, it is not as if this Court has ruled on the point or plea of limitation either way. By merely allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint and incorporate the necessary averments so as to save the bar of limitation, it is not as if the merits of amended pleas are considered and decided. At the stage of the amendment and grant of the prayer in that behalf, this Court is not concerned with and it has not decided the merits of the amendment. Therefore, by keeping all contentions including the point of limitation specifically open and clarifying that this order will not preclude the defendant from raising all permissible pleas, that this amendment is granted. Equally, the order will not prejudice the request as made in Notice of Motion No.1883 of 2011 by the defendant. Subject to the pleas {4} chs1695-09.doc of the parties in both, this suit as also the notice of motion, and bar of limitation, that the amendment is granted. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amended plaint be served two weeks thereafter. 6} Notice of Motion No.1883 of 2011 be heard at a later stage and if any summons for judgment is moved by the plaintiff, the defendant can request the Court to hear both, the summons for judgment and notice of motion, together. Even if no summons for judgment is moved, the defendants can press the motion in its ordinary course. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)