1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 850 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1152 OF 2009 Rafique Khalique Shaikh. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Zakiabi Kadar Mohd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. H.S. Anand i/b. Mrs. Sarita Donde for the Plaintiff. Mr. Vivek Salunke for Defendant 1. Mr. Rajeev More, AGP for Defendant No.5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 08th SEPTEMBER 2009. P.C. :- Perused the Chamber Summons and the affidavit in support including the Schedule to the Chamber Summons setting out the proposed amendment. 2. The amendments are on the basis that during the pendency of the Suit, the events set out in the Schedule have occurred and therefore, it has become necessary for him to apply for amending the plaint. The amendment also seeks to correct certain typographical and obvious errors in the plaint. 3. To the extent of the typographical errors to be corrected, there is no opposition to the amendment. 2 4. However, Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that by the amendment to incorporate the events set outin the Schedule the entire cause of action has undergone a change. The Suit is originally instituted only against MHADA and the declaration and relief is directed against that authority. It is that authority which should confer title is the request. Now, on the basis of the alleged subsequent events, the Plaintiff is seeking relief against Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and particularly, that the possession should be restored by these Defendants to him. According to Defendant Nos.1 to 4, this is a distinct cause of action for which the Plaintiff will have to file a substantive Suit. Further, according to Mr. Salunke, the reliefs are clearly barred inasmuch as the provisions contained in the MHADA Act, 1976 and more particularly, Section 177 bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 5. Having perused the affidavit in support and reply and considering the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the plaint is sought to be amended on the basis of events of 16th December 2008 and 17th January 2009. The relief against Defendant Nos.1 to 4 is to the extent that they should restore possession which is illegally taken. The relief against Defendant No.5 - MHADA is that it should transfer the title to the property. There is no impediment to amend the plaint inasmuch as the property remains the same. The basis on which the reliefs are claimed is also identical inasmuch as 3 possession and title. Merely because the plaint is permitted to be amended to incorporate additional prayers based on subsequent events does not mean that the cause of action would undergo a change. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Salunke that the amendment cannot be granted. Once Mr. Salunke urges that the remedy of the Plaintiff is to seek reliefs by a substantive Suit against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, then, it is apparent that it is conceded that the Plaintiff can maintain a separate Suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 4. One of the objects of permitting amendment to the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, even on this ground, the amendment can be granted. 6. However, while granting the amendment, it must be clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court, maintainability of the Suit, issue of limitation and merits. All pleas of both sides in that behalf are kept open and subject to the same, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Amended plaint be served within a period of four weeks thereafter. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)