1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1392 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1329 OF 2005. Kashinath Parshuram Mhatre & ors. : Plaintiffs. Versus Ramesh Namdeo Patil & ors. : Defendants. Shri.Rajesh Revankar for the Applicants/Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Chamber Summons, the Applicants, who are the original Plaintiffs seek amendment of the Plaint in terms of the Schedule-I annexed to the Chamber Summons. 2. The reasons, why the said amendment is sought, are mentioned in the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. The Respondents, who are the original Defendants, have filed their 2 Affidavit in Reply. The tenor of the Affidavit is more on the merits of the case of the Plaintiffs introduced by the said amendment rather than opposing the amendment sought. In my view, the merits of the case of the Plaintiffs introduced by way of the said amendment cannot be gone into at this stage. The above Chamber Summons is, therefore, required to be allowed and is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in the Plaint within a period of four weeks from date and to serve an amended copy of the Plaint on the Defendants. Returnable date of the Writ of Summons is extended by eight weeks from date. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the same has not been considered at this stage. The Plaintiffs would be at liberty to move an Application in that behalf. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]