IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 347 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2853 OF 2000 Madanlal Gupta & Anr,. .....Plaintiffs. Vs. Praful Jethalal Mehta .....Defendant. Mr. R.K. Desai Advocate for the plaintiffs. Ms. S.R.Bhasin, Advocate for the defendant. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2009. P.C. 1. By the above chamber summons, the plaintiffs have prayed for amendment to the plaint as per the schedule -I whereby the plaintiff seeks to replace the agreement at Exhibit-B, with the Deed of Confirmation dated 21st August, 1994, which is annexed to the chamber summons. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is through oversight and mistake that the Deed of Confirmation was not annexed and the same was realized while preparing the draft of the rejoinder. 3. The defendant has filed reply opposing the chamber summons. The contention of the defendant is that the chamber summons has been filed six years after filing of the suit and that the document which is sought to be replaced is a Deed of Confirmation of the year 1994 and was in custody of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit and, therefore, this chamber summons should not be allowed. 4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am inclined to allow the chamber summons in the following terms. (i) The Plaintiffs are allowed to annex the Deed of Confirmation to the plaint as Exhibit-E and make consequential amendments, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to defendant within two weeks. Payment of costs is a condition precedent. (ii) The amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. 5. Chamber summons to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [A.A. SAYED, J.]