: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS NO.649 OF 2007 NO.649 OF 2007 NO.649 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3664 NO.3664 NO.3664 OF 2004 OF 2004 OF 2004 Rashida Yusuf Butler .. Plaintiff. Versus Sajida Hasan Mirza & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.S.P.Kanuga for plaintiff. Ms.Anita Bhaktawani for defendant Nos.1,4 and 5. Mr.Arshad Haindandy for defendant Nos.2,3 and respondent No.1. Mr.H.P. Vyas for respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE DATE DATE : 22nd July, 2008. : 22nd July, 2008. : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The present suit is filed for having administration of the estate said to be left by one Mr.Butler. Various properties which according to the plaintiff are required to be administered are situated in Part-I and Part-II of "Exhibit-A" "Exhibit-A" "Exhibit-A" to the plaint. Item No.6 is a property which is situated at Surat (Gujarat) : 2 : and according to the plaintiff, it stands in the name of Mr.Ibrahim Rahim. 2. The present chamber summons is taken out so as to incorporate an averment at paragraph 4(a) to say that the suit property at serial number 6 of "Exhibit-A" "Exhibit-A" "Exhibit-A" is of co-ownership of plaintiffs and defendants to the extent of 20% and the 2 respondents also have a share. 3. Some other consequential amendments are also sought in the present chamber summons. 4. I have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Kanuga submitted that respondent No.1 and 2 are proper parties as the partition is sought in respect of Item No.6 in which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have a share and hence their presence in the suit is necessary. Learned Advocate Mr.Kanuga pressed for amendment in order to have appropriate averments as regards the respective shares owned by respective parties and to facilitate the administration of the share and, in particular, Item No.6 of "Exhibit-A". "Exhibit-A". "Exhibit-A". 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Haindandy appearing on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 : 3 : contended that the property at Item No.6 never belonged to late Butler and is owned by somebody else and as such amendment sought should not be granted. He further submitted that respondent No.1 is not a proper party to the present suit. 7. On consideration of the bare text of the plaint, the plaintiff wants to claim that property at Item No.6 is the one in which late Mr.Butlar had a right. If defendant Nos.2 and 3 are contesting this proposition, undoubtedly, they will be permitted to do so. If one peruses the draft amendment, it is clear that the plaintiff wants to throw light as to the percentage in the properties owned by plaintiff and defendants through the said late Mr.Butlar and as to how respondents are concerned in the property. 8. By now, it is well settled that at the stage of considering application for amendment, the court is not required to test the veracity of paragraphs which are sought to be amended and the court is required to see whether the amendment is required to be granted to meet the ends of justice and to resolve disputes between the parties. Having done that, I am inclined to observe that if Item No.6 is a property which is going to be a subject matter of partition as demanded by the plaintiff, additional averments sought in the chamber summons can also be granted to keep the record straight and allow the : 4 : parties to attend to the matter in accordance with the factual aspects. 9. In my view, the amendment is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties and to throw light as to in what percentage said late Mr.Butler was the owner of the property. It is clarified that merely because the amendment is granted, the court has not accepted the correctness of the statements which will be added to the plaint by way of amendment. 10. Hence, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to grant the chamber summons. Hence, the order :- O R D E R R D E R R D E R a) Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Plaintiff to carry out amendment within 10 days from today. Plaintiff to serve amended copy of the plaint upon Advocates for defendants as well as for respondents within 2 weeks from the date of carrying out the amendment. b) Notice of Motion taken out by defendant Nos.1 and 2 stands adjourned for 2 weeks. On that day, further orders regarding directions will be : 5 : passed. 11. Needless to mention that after the amended copy of the plaint is served upon the defendants and newly added respondents, they will have an opportunity to file additional written statement / fresh written statement as may be found necessary. (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, J.) J.) J.)