1 chs1104-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1104 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2568 OF 2006 Meena Shamdas Gurnani .. Plaintiff versus Mukta Naresh Bhargava & Ors .. Defendants Mr.V.S.Kapse for the plaintiff. Mr.S.I.Joshi for the defendant Nos.1,5 and 8 to 10. Mr.Hemant Sethi i/by Hemant Sethi & Co for defendant No.14. Mr.L.S.Castellino for defendant No.12. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23rd November 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. Mr.Kapse states that affidavit proving the service of this chamber summons will be duly filed within a period of one week from today. Statement is accepted. 2} Having perused the chamber summons and the affidavit in support and hearing counsel appearing for some of the defendants, I am of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused if the plaintiff is allowed to 2 chs1104-09.doc amend the plaint in terms of the schedule. The affidavit in support points out as to how the amendments are based on certain events which though occurring prior to the institution of the suit but the documents in relation thereof, were not available. They became available after the plaintiff took assistance of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In such circumstances and with a view to enable this Court to effectively and properly resolve the controversy in the suit, this chamber summons is allowed. It is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties on the issue of maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction of this Court and merits of the plaintiff's claim. The chamber summons is disposed off in above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)