1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.798 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2630 OF 2005 . The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai : Plaintiffs versus Hill, Son & Dinshaw (P) Ltd. : Defendants. Ms.Kaneej Munjee i/by M/s.Motiwala & co. for the Plaintiffs/Applicant Ms.Swati Agarwal i/by M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar for the Defendants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Chamber Summons, the Plaintiffs seek amendment to the Plaint in terms of the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. 2. The reason, why the said amendment is sought, is 2 mentioned in the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. 3. The Chamber Summons is opposed by the learned counsel for the Defendants on the ground that there is no merit in the amendment sought for. 4. I have gone through the averments sought to be introduced by way of the said amendment. In my view, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Defendants as the merits of the case of Plaintiffs, introduced by the said amendment cannot be gone into at this stage. Hence the Chamber Summons is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Plaintiffs are directed to carry out the amendment within a period of six weeks from date and to serve an amended copy of the Plaint on the Defendants within two weeks thereafter. The Defendants would be entitled to file their Additional Written Statement within six weeks thereafter. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. 3 [R.M.SAVANT, J]