- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 696 OF 2007 IN SUIT No. 4290 OF 1994 Mohanlal Ghanshamdas Kukreja & Anr. ... Plaintiffs Vs. Mrs. Meena Pravin Joshi & Ors. ... Defendants *** Mr. P. N. Ganwani i/b A. V. Jain & Associates, for the Plaintiffs. Ms. S.I. Shah, for Defendants. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : AUGUST 7, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and for substituting paragraph 9 by making further averments in the said paragraph; and also for the purpose of adding two prayers after player clause (a). 2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants, seeking recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.1,58,28,000/- towards costs of the wooden frame structure of the plaintiffs’ - 2 - building and damages and special damages, as per claim (Exhibit “S”) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and alternatively for payment of actual costs of Rs.1,10,79,600/- towards the difference of costs between wooden frame structure and steel frame structure of the plaintiffs’ building. Suit is filed in the year 1994. A specific averment was made in the said plaint paragraph 9 that defendants had demolished the wooden frame structure of the entire building and reconstructed the same, partly changing the materials, identity and specification in steel frame structure without authority of the plaintiff, and therefore, it was contended that defendants were liable to restore the wooden frame structure. Though this specific averment was made in the plaint, the relief sought by the plaintiff was of damages or the actual costs towards difference between the costs of wooden frame structure and the steel frame structure. The plaintiff has now filed the Chamber Summons in which he is seeking to add two additional prayers which are as under - “(aa) that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 19 be ordered and decreed to restore the wooden frame structure of suit building within reasonable time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; (bb) that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 19 be ordered and decreed to restore the 5th floor of the wooden frame structure of suit building within two months or - 3 - within such reasonable time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; in the alternative That without prejudice to claim of plaintiffs in the suit for damages, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 19 be ordered and decreed to restore the 5th floor of the suit building in steel frame structure, within two months time or within such reasonable time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;” 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs intend to substitute original paragraph 9 of the plaint by the Schedule, which is annexed to the Chamber Summons. He submitted that by the said paragraph material particulars have been stated which have not been averred in the original paragraph 9. He submitted that there is no delay in filing this application for amendment and more particularly in respect of the additional prayers, which are now sought to be added in the plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant invited my attention to the “minutes of order” which were filed in the suit filed by the defendants, being Suit No. 1358 of 1999. He submitted that further orders were also passed in the year 1999. He therefore, submitted that the appellate Court which had passed an order in an appeal filed by the defendants herein and refused to grant reliefs which were claimed by the plaintiffs herein in the Notice of Motion, which was taken out by them mainly on the ground that no - 4 - relief was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, and therefore, interim relief, as prayed by the plaintiff could not be granted. He submitted that therefore, plaintiff had now taken out this Chamber Summons for adding the said averments. In my view the relief claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be granted. There is a gross delay in filing this application for amendment of the plaint. The reliefs which are now claimed by the plaintiffs are clearly time barred and are barred by law of limitation, and therefore, plaintiffs cannot now be permitted to change nature of the suit by adding these prayers in the plaint which was filed in the year 1994. Initially suit was filed by the plaintiff for damages and alternatively for the costs. The plaintiff by this Chamber Summons is trying to change nature of the suit by seeking to add prayers which will certainly have the effect of changing nature of the suit. For the aforesaid reasons the amendment cannot be allowed. Chamber Summons therefore, is dismissed. 4. Since the suit is of 1994, hearing of the suit is expedited. Sd/- [ V. M. KANADE, J.]