SSK/ 1 chs.1466.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1466 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3265 OF 2006 Vinod Sampatraj Jain ....Plaintiff Versus Sanjay Sampatraj Jain & Ors. ...Defendants Mr. Rashid A Khan, Advocate for the plaintiff. Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate for defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 & 8. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 9TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks leave to amend Para 4 of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons so as to substitute the words “M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Co” for “M/s. Sampatraj Jugraj Jain & Co.” Leave as prayed for is granted. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The chamber summons is taken out for permission to amend the Notice of Motion No.4116 of 2009 and consequential amendments to the plaint in terms of the schedule annexed thereto. The plaintiff’s suit is for SSK/ 2 chs.1466.10 administration of the estate of his deceased father. The suit is filed on the allegation that the deceased father of the plaintiff carried on business as a proprietary concern known as “M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Co”. It was further alleged that defendant no.1 took over the business of the deceased father in exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was informed by defendant no.1 that the business in the hand of the deceased father was not proprietary business but same was partnership business and the said partnership business was dissolved on 1st May, 1992. The plaintiff thereafter demanded inspection of documents of deed of partnership as well as deed of dissolution dated 1st April, 1992 and 1st May, 1992 respectively. Copies of the said documents were received by the plaintiff in pursuance of the direction of the Court. The plaintiff now wants to bring these documents on record and wants to allege that both these deeds are sham and bogus documents. 4. The defendants contested the chamber summons. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that throughout the life of the deceased father, the business was partnership business in the name of “M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Co” in which the plaintiff was never a partner. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the said business was never a proprietary business. SSK/ 3 chs.1466.10 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the main pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiff by proposed amendment wants to contend that the deed of partnership and deed of dissolution dated 1st April, 1992 and 1st May, 1992 respectively are sham and bogus. This allegation is stoutly denied by learned counsel for the defendants. At this stage, the veracity of the allegation cannot be gone into. The plaintiff and defendants have to prove their respective contentions on merits at the trial of the suit. It is now more than a settled law that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in grant of amendment. In the above said circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint in terms of schedule annexed to the chamber summons, same being not contrary to the allegation made in the plaint, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants in as much as they are entitled to file written statement and contest the allegation. The amendment was necessitated because of the subsequent event viz. denial of nature of the firm by the defendants. In these facts and circumstances, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 6. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today and amended copy be served upon the concerned parties within further period of two weeks. (RANJIT MORE, J.)