1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.748 OF 2008 IN SUIT 363 OF 2008 Vidyut Metallics Private Limited ....Plaintiff Versus Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh, Mumbai & Ors. ....Defendants and Shri Jitendra Awhad ....Respondent Ms. S. Srikrishna a/w. Mr. Pritesh Rajghar i/b. M/s. PDS Legal, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Mr. T. R. Yadav, Advocate for the Respondent. Ms. Seema Chopda, Advocate for Defendant Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. : Heard, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by the Plaintiff for permission to amend the plaint, so as to implead the Respondent as Defendant No.7. 3. The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit no.363 of 2008 for the following reliefs: “a) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs. 47.68 crores payable 2 by the Defendants jointly and severally to the Plaintiff as and by way of damages for loss of business due to reduced productivity caused by the Defendants to the Plaintiff as per the Particulars of Claim annexed at Exhibit “P” hereto; b) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.50.00 crores or such other sum as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, payable by the Defendants jointly and severally to the Plaintiff for loss of reputation and good will, as per the Particulars of Claim annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q”; 4. The Plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for alleged illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional acts that has been committed by the Defendant No.1 and/or its members for the past several years. The Plaintiff now claims that the Respondent/ proposed Defendant No.7 who is a member of the Legislative Council is a key person behind those illegal and unlawful acts of the Defendant No.1. It is alleged that the said Respondent/proposed Defendant No.7 is the master mind behind the original Defendants. Since, the allegations are made against the Respondent/proposed Defendant No.7, it is submitted that he is a necessary party to the suit. 5. The impleadment of Respondent/proposed Defendant No.7 is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on the ground that he is not 3 concerned with the activities of the Defendants. 6. The proposed amendment is not contrary to the allegation made in the plaint nor it changes the nature of the suit. The suit is filed in the year 2008. The Plaintiff could have impleaded Respondent/proposed Defendant No.7 in the original suit. If it is the contention of the Respondent/proposed Defendant No.7 that he is not concerned with the activities of the Defendants, then it is always open for him to contest the suit by filing a written statement. Now, it is more than settled position that the merits of the amendment cannot be gone into and the Court should adopt a liberal approach in granting of amendment. In that view of the matter, the Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of of three weeks from today and amended copy be served upon the other side within a period of two weeks, thereafter. 8. Needless to mention that the Defendants are entitled to file additional written statement/written statement thereafter, within a period of further two weeks. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)