1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1432 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.4552 OF 1998 Ruia Marketing Pvt. Ltd. .. Plaintiffs versus Bajaj Auto Ltd & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.P.N.Singh i/by Vyas & Bhalwal for the plaintiffs. Ms.D.P.Bosmia for defendant Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8th December 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in support of chamber summons. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for 3rd and 4th defendants. Reply filed by the 3rd and 4th defendants is taken on record. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant company was demerged into three companies, namely, Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Holdings and Investment Limited and Bajaj Finserv Limited. The case of the plaintiffs is that the demerger scheme was approved with effect from 31st March 2007. The prayer in the chamber summons is for carrying out amendment to the plaint for impleading Bajaj Holdings and Investment Limited and Bajaj Finserv Limited as party defendants. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs desire to bring on record the market value of the shares of the 2 aforesaid companies and therefore consequential amendment is sought to the prayer clause. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th defendants opposed the chamber summons on the ground that there is a delay in filing the chamber summons. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant states that all other defendants have been served with the chamber summons. 4. The amendment sought is based on demerger which was effected on 31st March 2007. In the circumstances, a case is made out for permitting amendment of plaint. 5. The chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within six weeks. (A.S.OKA,J)