Chs1949.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1949 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2783 OF 2009 Darshan Kaur Ishar Singh & Anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Defendants. Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. J.S. Saluja for the Plaintiffs. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for Defendant No.2. Mr. Sirsikar for Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 3rd FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.- 1 In a pending suit which filed in 2009, as the Court has granted liberty to the Plaintiff to amend the plaint, the Chamber Summons in question has been taken out. There is no reply or written statement filed by the Defendants. 2 The objection with regard to the grant of Chamber Summons is raised by Defendant No.2 who is subsequent purchaser. The basic submission that there is an eviction decree passed against the Plaintiff. Chs1949.09 2 However, an appeal against the same is pending. The issue of ownership with regard to the structure on the said land is in dispute. That issue, even pending the appeal, need to be considered, as agitated by the Plaintiffs in the present chamber summons, basically in view of the fact that there are averments made in the plaint referring to the ownership of the structure and not of the land and therefore, in view of the said dispute so raised, by keeping all points open, I am inclined to grant this Chamber summons for proper adjudication of the matter, apart from the fact that the present chamber summons has been taken out without any delay and pursuance to the liberty granted to the Plaintiffs, the Chamber summons is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The parties to carry out the amendment within one week. 3 S.O. to 10/02/2010, for hearing of notice of motion. The status-quo as granted, to continue till then. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)