1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.173 OF 2007 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1588 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.966 OF 2006 Shri Kailash Dashrath Borhade .... Appellant (Ori. defendant) Vs. Smt. Chhaya C. Ghone .... Respondent (Ori. plaintiff) Mr. Bhave with Ms. Y. Lada i/by M/s Harakhchand & Co. for appellant. Mr. S.A. Sawant, Advocate for respondent. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 22nd June, 2010 P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 9th February 2007 passed in Chamber Summons No.1588 of 2006. The plaintiff- Chhaya C. Ghone filed Summary Suit No.960 of 2006 claiming a money decree in the sum of Rs.1,62,500/-. It was claimed in the plaint that the respondent Kailas Borhade has signed promissory note dated 1st July 2003 in favour of the 2 plaintiff to pay Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @12% per annum. To the plaint, a copy of promissory note was annexed, which showed that the name of the person in whose favour the promissory note was executed was blank. The rate of interest was also blank. Therefore, the Chamber Summons No.1588 of 2006 was taken out for permission to substitute promissory note, which was annexed to the plaint. A copy of the promissory note which was to be substituted was annexed to the Chamber Summons. It was claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the Chamber Summons that the promissory note, a copy of which was annexed to the plaint wrongly typed and therefore correctly typed copy is being substituted. That Chamber Summons was granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9th February 2007. That order is challenged in the appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides in detail. We have perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that though in the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons, the plaintiff states that she is now filing a correctly typed copy of the promissory note, on which the suit is based, the copy of 3 promissory note, which is filed with the Chamber Summons and the copy of the promissory note which is filed with the plaint are the same and there is no change. It is thus clear that the Chamber Summons has been taken out without application of mind and the learned Single Judge has allowed the Chamber Summons without appreciating that by granting Chamber Summons, there will no change in the recitals in the document. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge challenged in the appeal is set aside. However, this order will not come in the way of the plaintiff taking out Chamber Summons for carrying out appropriate amendment in the plaint. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)