1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1059 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3387 OF 1994 Prithvi Vallabh Bhalchandra Rawat & Anr. ....Plaintiffs Versus M/s. Shah Enterprises & Ors. ....Defendants Mr. P. N. Patwardhan a/w. Mr. K. Kanojia i/b. A. Bharat & Co., Advocates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. N. Lapasia i/b. M/s.Niranjan & Co, Advocates for Defendant No.1. Mr. Pratap Patil i/b. Mr. Manoj Kadam, Advocate for Defendant No.2(b) Ms. Naseem Patrawala, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr. Lapasia, learned Counsel for Defendant No.1, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for Defendant No.2(b) and Ms.Patrawala, learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 3 to 6. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by the Plaintiffs for permission to carry out amendments in the plaint in terms of the schedule annexed thereto. Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel, at the outset makes statement that that he is not pressing proposed prayer g (1) at page no.21 of the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. Statement accepted. 2 3. The Plaintiffs initially filed a suit for cancellation of the power of attorney and the suit agreement. It is submitted that the suit is required to be amended in order to give better and further particulars as well as introduce events subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. 4. By the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs want to add paragraphs 7(a), 9(a), 15(a),(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m). The Plaintiffs also want to add prayer g-2 to g-5. By proposed amendment under paragraph 7(a), the Plaintiffs want to rely upon the photographs of the Building “Vishwa Gulab” taken on 19th August, 1992. By proposed amendment under paragraph 9(a), the Plaintiffs want to give better particulars of the averments contained in paragraph 9. In paragraph 15 of the original plaint, the Plaintiffs have given particulars of restrictions regarding development of the suit property as a lessee. By the proposed amendments in paragraph 15(a) to (d), the Plaintiffs want to bring on record events subsequent to the date of filing of the suit i.e. induction of the third parties in the suit property by Defendant No.1. By proposed amendments under paragraphs 15 (d) to (h), the Plaintiffs want to introduce breaches of the agreement on the part of Defendant No.1 subsequent to the date of suit. By the proposed amendments contained in paragraphs 15(i) to (m), the Plaintiffs wants to introduce averments in support of the relief claimed in the proposed amendment. By proposed amendment under paragraph g -2, the Plaintiffs claim appointment of the Court Receiver. By proposed amendments under 3 paragraphs g-3 and g-4, the Plaintiffs seek compensation from Defendant No.1 and/or intruders and by proposed amendment under prayer clause g-5, the Plaintiffs seek vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 4. Mr. Lapasia, learned Counsel for Defendant No.1, objected the above amendments on three grounds i.e. : 1. The proposed amendment if allowed, same will take away the jurisdiction of this Court, 2. The proposed amendment is time barred and therefore, cannot be introduced and 3. The proposed amendment is contrary to the original pleading and the Plaintiffs want to introduce new case. 5. I have gone through the original pleading in the plaint and the proposed amendments. The suit is filed for cancellation of power of attorney and the suit agreement. By proposed amendments, the Plaintiff is either giving better particulars of the events already pleaded or events occurred subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. Perusal of the original pleading and proposed amendments do not disclose any inconsistency. The proposed amendments, in my opinion, does not introduce a new case. The objection of the Defendant No. 1 that the proposed amendments are barred by law of limitation can be taken care of, by allowing proposed amendments subject to law of limitation. 4 6. Regarding objection to the amendment on the ground of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 submitted that by proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs challenges the transaction between the Defendant No.1 and persons introduced by him as tenants, and Defendant No.1 is also seeking possession of the suit premises. The Plaintiffs, however, do not admit relationship of Defendant No.1 and other persons, as that of tenants and landlord. The Plaintiffs claim that the persons introduced by Defendant No.1 are trespassers, since they have been inducted after termination of the power of attorney and the suit agreement. The averment in the plaint will have to be taken as it is. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for possession of the land on the basis that the third parties inducted by Defendant No.1 are trespassers will be maintainable in this Court. 7. It is well settled that the Court should adopt liberal approach in the matter of grant of amendment, if no prejudice is being caused to the Defendant. A statement is made across the Bar that the pleadings are completed, however, issues are not framed. In any case, the pleadings are always subject to proof and therefore, in my opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the Defendants. The chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) except prayer clause g-(1 ) at page 21 of the schedule annexed thereto. It is expressly made clear that the amendment will be subject to the law of limitation. 5 8. Necessary amendments be carried out by the Plaintiffs within a period of three weeks from today and amended copy of the plaint be served upon the Advocates of the concerned parties within further period of two weeks. 9. Needless to mention that the Defendants are entitled to file additional written statement, if necessary and advised. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)