1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 760 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 527 OF 2005 Capt. Sukhdev Singh, Ex. Ltd. Cdr Indian Navy ..... Plaintiff. v/s The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited & ors. ...... Defendants. ------- Capt. Sukhdev Singh, plaintiff & the applicant in Chamber Summons No.760 of 2008 present. Mr. Nitin Thakkar with Mr. B. Colabawala i/b Hariani & Co. for defendant No.1. -------- CORAM: V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the party in person and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1. 2. Chamber Summons No.760 of 2008 is taken out by the plaintiff who is appearing in person. By this Chamber Summons, he seeks leave of this Court to amend the plaint as per the scheduled annexed to the Chamber Summons. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, prayer clause (a) of the Chamber 2 Summons is granted so far as clauses (i) to (v) of the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons are concerned. It is clarified that clause (v) is allowed subject to limitation. However, so far as clauses (vi) and (vii) are concerned, they pertain to the annextures of the plaint regarding memorandum of registered address and vakalatnama which was filed earlier on behalf of the plaintiff erstwhile advocate. Plaintiff, therefore, is not permitted to amend the plaint as per clauses (vi) and (vii). 3. So far as clause (viii) is concerned, paragraphs Nos. 20w, 20x, 20y, 20z, 20aa, 20bb, 20cc, 20dd, 20ee, 20ff, 20gg, 20hh which are supposed to be reflecting subsequent events which have taken placed after the plaint was filed. Mr. Thakkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 submits that, in fact, they are the averments which are made in the affidavit in reply by the defendant No.1 in various notices of motion which have been taken out by the defendant No.1. He also invited my attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari in earlier Chamber Summons No.1406 of 2007, seeking similar reliefs for amendment of the plaint. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge by his order dated 16th October, 2007 was pleased to reject the request which was made by the plaintiff herein. In my view, since already this issue has been concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Chamber Summons No.1406 of 2007, the 3 plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint in terms of the paragraphs mentioned above. The said request is, therefore, declined. However, plaintiff is permitted to amend the prayers and add new prayers after existing prayer (b) in terms of clause (viii) which are reproduced in the schedule on internal page 8 of the Chamber Summons. 4. So far as prayer clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, these prayers will be considered in the Notice of Motion which is already taken out by the plaintiff and, therefore, these prayers will not be considered in this Chamber Summons. 5. Chamber Summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in the aforesaid terms. 6. Chamber Summons is disposed of. 8. In view of the amendment, time is granted to the defendants to file their Written Statement within eight weeks. 9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. V.M. KANADE, J.