1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.428 OF 2007 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.428 OF 2007 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.428 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 1999 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.1113 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.1113 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.1113 OF 2000 Anil Gulabdas Shah .. Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.G.Shah petitioner in person Mr.P.M.Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Mr.G.D.Utangale for respondent no.2 Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prateek Sakseria, Mr.Sandeep Parekh, Ms.Leena Desai and Mr.Abhishek Sawant i/b M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for respondent no.4 Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Advocate i/b Ms.N.P.Karnik for respondent no.6 and 7 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & R.V. MORE,JJ. R.V. MORE,JJ. R.V. MORE,JJ. DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This is the Chamber Summons taken out by the 2 petitioner who appears in person for seeking amendment as per schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. The first is to correct the description of respondent no.4 by incorporating the new name of the Company, Akruti Nirman Limited which has been now incorporated as Akruti City Limited, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol (MIDC), Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093. The other amendment is to the prayer clause in the body of the petition whereby the petitioner wants this court to take note of subsequent development. 3. The Chamber Summons is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 on the ground that the petitioner is trying to seek relief by way of amendment for the cause of action which is barred by limitation. In our view, the proposed amendment in no way cause prejudice to the respondents. The respondents can very well file their return on affidavit and raise all the issues and contentions right from maintainability of the petition to the issue of limitation. Further, this would also avoid multiciplity of proceeding and it is now trite law as stated by the Supreme Court that amendment of all nature should be permitted as the other side would have 3 ample opportunity to meet the case of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason why the court should deprive the party particularly, the party in person of incorporating pleading which according to him would help him in getting the relief sought for against the respondents. Therefore, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment be carried out within two weeks. 4. Needless to state that the petitioner would place on record amended copy of the petition and also furnish the same to the respondents. Respondents would be at liberty to carry out consequential amendment to meet the case of the petitioner. Further, it will be open for them to raise all issues and contentions available to them under the law. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (R.V. More, J.) (R.V. More, J.) (R.V. More, J.)