1 chs1785-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. rpa CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1785 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3055 OF 2005 M/s. M.D. Enterprise .. Plaintiffs V/s. Gurunath mahadeo Pethe & Ors. .. Defendants .... Mr. A. Dasguptai/b. M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the plaintiffs. Mr. M. S. Shinde for defendant Nos. 1, 2(a) and 2(b). Mr. M. Mishra for defendant No.3. Ms. Shilpaja Kondalkar i/b. Mr. S.C. Thatte for defendant No.5. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in support of the Chamber Summons. Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b). Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5(a). The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5(a) seeks time. Time cannot be granted. 2 chs1785-10 2. The amendment sought by the plaintiffs is two fold. The first part of the amendment is for deleting prayer clause (b) and for adding a new prayer for declaration that the suit between the plaintiffs and defendant No.5(a) is settled as per memorandum of settlement dated 2nd May, 2008. The second part of the amendment is by which plaintiff is seeking deletion of defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b). The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 submitted that considering the nature of the suit, defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) are necessary parties to the suit. He submitted that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to delete the necessary parties. The learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) has no objection for allowing the amendment as he states that the dispute with the said defendants has been settled by the plaintiffs. 3. I have considered the submissions. In so far as deletion of the names of defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) is concerned, it is obvious that their names are deleted at the risk of the plaintiffs. The effect of deletion will be considered at the appropriate stage and it will be always open for the concerned defendants to 3 chs1785-10 contend that the suit is not maintainable as defendant Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) were allegedly necessary parties. Prayer (b) is sought to be added by amendment. The prayer clause (b) is based on a memorandum of settlement allegedly executed during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the said prayer will have to be permitted. 4. Subject to what is observed above, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 4. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks. 5. It is obvious that after amended plaint and Notice of Motion is served to the defendants, they will be at liberty to file additional written statement as well as additional reply to the Notice of Motion. JUDGE