1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.137 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2409 OF 2007 Om Prakash Navani ....Plaintiff V/s. Dr.Ajit B. Kerkar & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.Mahendra Ghelani i/b Law Charter for the Plaintiff. Mr.Rafeeq Pir Mohideen with Ms.Boski Sharma i/b Paras Kuhad & Associates for Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Shyam Mehta i/b M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Defendant No.5. Mr.Swapan Samdani i/b Dave & Girish & Co. for Defendant No.11. Mr.Patrick Fernandes for Defendant No.12. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This is the Plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The suit is filed for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement entered into in the year 2002 for the sale and transfer of various shares of Defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 by the holders thereof who are also impleaded as Defendants. 3. By this amendment, it is alleged that 14,25,000 shares of Defendant No.4 together with corresponding forms executed by the holders 2 thereof viz. Defendant No.5 were in fact deposited with the Plaintiff with the authority to fill in the same and have the shares transfered to its name. It is alleged that the documents were handed over by Defendant No.1 to the Director of the Plaintiff, who expired on 16.4.2006. It is further alleged that when the suit was filed on 3.7.2007, this vital fact remained to be recalled and communicated by the Plaintiff to the advocates while giving instructions for filing the plaint. The proposed amendments set out these facts and seek the consequential amendments based thereon. 4. It is argued on behalf of the Defendants that this Chamber Summons was fraudulent, that it contains false statements and ought not therefore to be allowed. For instance, it was submitted that it is impossible that facts as important as those now sought to be introduced could have been lost sight of in a matter of this nature. These were not a few shares but over 14,00,000 shares. All the above facts are denied by the Defendants who contended that these shares have in fact been pledged with the banks in respect of the facilities granted to Defendant No.5. On behalf of the Plaintiff it was contended albeit orally across the bar that it is the duplicate shares that were pledged. 5. I do not for a moment suggest that the submissions regarding the case in the amendment on merits being unsustainable, is without force. It is however, not necessary in this application for amendment to consider the merits of the rival contentions. It is clarified that the amendments shall operate from the date of the Chamber Summons and not from the date of the filing of the suit. 6. Subject to the above clarifications, the Chamber Summons is 3 made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The amendments to be carried out within four weeks from today. 7. The order is subject to the costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, Mumbai within four weeks from today.