1 chs1100-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1100 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.158 OF 2010 Madhuriben K.Mehta & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Ashvin R. Nandu ....Defendant And M/s.Aesthetic ....Respondent ....Deft. No.2. Mr.Dharam Sharma with Ms.Uma Sharma i/b Dharam & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Zubin Behram Kamdin with Mr.Dhiren Shah and Ms.Som Sinha i/b Vimla & Co. for the Defendant and the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is the plaintiffs’ chamber summons to amend the plaint. There is no objection to the amendment in so far as the amendment seeks to implead the respondent as defendant No.2. Indeed this part of the amendment cannot be objected to. The amendment challenging the conveyance between the defendant and the respondent dated 24.2.2011 must also be allowed. The same affects the plaintiff’s case. The suit is filed to set aside the conveyance dated 20.3.1993. The conveyance was preceded by an agreement for sale dated 3.12.1988, 2 chs1100-11 which has not been challenged. The agreement and the conveyance were executed by four plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 were minors when both the documents were executed. They attained majority in the years 1994 and 1996 respectively. 2. The only ground on which the plaintiffs challenge the conveyance in the suit was that the consideration stipulated in the conveyance had not been paid. The amendment now seeks to introduce an additional ground of challenge viz. that plaintiff No.1 who is the mother plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, had entered into the transaction without any legal necessity. 3. As far as plaintiff No.3 is concerned, the amendment must be allowed. The amendment is not contrary to what is stated in the plaint. It is merely an additional ground of challenge. Further as far as plaintiff No.4 is concerned, this amendment ought not be allowed for it is admittedly contrary to the stand taken by plaintiff No.4 in a letter dated 23.11.2008, which stands incorporated in paragraph 8 of the plaint. By this letter, plaintiff No.4 confirmed the conveyance inter-alia by calling upon the defendant to perform his obligations thereunder. The ground of legal necessity was not taken either in the letter or in the plaint. This ground now sought to be introduced as far as plaintiff No.4 is concerned is inconsistent with the pleadings. It also seeks to withdraw an admission viz. confirmation of the conveyance. This was not even seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf 3 chs1100-11 of the plaintiffs. 4. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c). However, as far as the pleadings regarding the legal necessities are concerned, the amendment is allowed only qua plaintiff No.3 and not the other plaintiffs. While carrying out the amendment, alteration shall be accordingly made. 5. The question of limitation cannot be gone into in this chamber summons for amendment, The plaintiffs’ case is that plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 came to know about the said agreement and conveyance only in the year 2008. Whether it is true or false relates to the merits of the matter. Further the question as to whether the additional plea on the ground of legal necessity is concerned is barred by limitation, is kept open. The amendment in this regard shall not relate back to the date of the filing of the suit but to the date of filing of the chamber summons. 6. With the above clarification the chamber summons is disposed of. The amendments to be carried out within four weeks from today. This order is stayed upto and including 10.10.2011.