: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 ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.328 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2622 OF 2007 XYZ. ..Petitioner. Vs. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. and 7 ors. ..Respondents. Petitioner in person present. Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha,Sr. Counsel with Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr,. Mayur Shetty and Ms. KavitaAnchan i/bny M.V. Kini & Co. for the Respondent NMos. 1, 5 and 6. Ms. Rohini Salian with Ms.Shobha Gopal for the Respondent No.3. Mr. Mihir Gherewalal i/by Desai & Chinoy for the Respondent No.4. Mr. M.S. Bhardwaj with Mr. L.S.Shetty for the Respopndent No.7. Mr.Shailesh Shah, A Panel Counsel with Mr. D.A.Nalawade,Govt. Pleader and Ms. Geeta Shastri, GP for the Respondent No.8. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 25th November,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner in person has moved this chamber summons for amendment of the pleadings in the petition as also additional reliefs. The final reliefs as sought in the petition are only against respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 . No permanent relief was sought against any of the other respondents. Interim relief has been prayed for against the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 and other respondents. The final reliefs sought are to restore :2: the petitioner’s Flight Safety Certificate and Flight Safety record book. The other relief is for payment of all the flight related allowances etc. and to direct the respondent No.1 to take action in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Relief is also sought by way exemplary damages by seeking a direction to the Director of respondent No.1 which is the National Aviation Company of India Ltd. to award her exemplary damages as per the guide-lines. No final relief was sought against the respondent No.8. Respondent No.8 has been sued not by name but by the post. The only relief was by way of interim relief to produce the documentary record, which according to the respondent, respondent No.8 has been compiled with. 2. The present chamber summons is for amendment of the plaint and substitution of prayer clauses. The petitioner has set out various additional facts. The petitioner also seeks deletion of all the earlier prayer clauses in the petition and substitution by new prayer clauses. The new prayer clauses are in respect of same or similar reliefs as earlier prayed except quantification of the amounts which were claimed in the earlier reliefs. 3. Prayer clause (c) seeks relief by way of compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in a :3: sum of Rs.10/- Crores by way of damages against respondent No.1 and its officers. The respondent No.8 is not an officer of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.8 is sued as Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime). The respondent No.8 was also not the Investigating Officer in respect of the two criminal cases in respect of which charge sheets have been filed in July and September, 2008. The cause of action based on which the petition was filed is based on the purported acts of officers of Respondent No.1. 4. In so far as the averments and prayer clauses against the respondents 1 to 7 in so far as the amendment is concerned, in our opinion, as they arise from the same cause of action and even though it is pointed out on behalf of the respondent No.1 that there are averments against officers who are not parties and as such this court should not allow the amendment, in our opinion, the respondent No.1 and other respondents can always meet those contentions by filing reply and the parties who are not parties can move this court, if advised, for striking out the pleadings if they are not necessary or scandalous. The amendment application in so far respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned is allowed subject to whatever reply and defence, the said respondents may have. :4: 5. Respondent No.8 is not sued individually but by the post. The petitioner appearing in person points out various averments against the respondent No.8. Damages are also sought from the respondent No.8 to the tune of Rs.10/- Crores jointly with Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The only grievance against respondent No.8 is the action of some officers who are not parties to the petition in the matter of filing charge sheet(s) in the complaint made by the petitioner. Charge sheets in fact have been filed. In the petition, there is no measure spelled out for calculating for assessing damages against respondent No.8. The relief by way of damages against Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are based on sexual harassment and other forms of harassment. There are no such allegations against the officer of respondent No.8. The allegations are that the complaints were not properly investigated by some officers. That is entirely a different cause of action .There are no specific allegations which can prima facie disclose a cause of action against the office of respondent No.8 to arrive at a conclusion that the officers of respondent No.8 can be sued for damages as prayed for in the petition. Petitioner must disclose by averments in the petition or amendment application some facts which prima facie would show some tortuous acts on the part of officer of respondent No.8. Also it must be averred and material disclosed that the act of the officers working in the office or under Respondent No.8 was malafide and not in the ordinary course of :5: discharge of duties. Considering the above, in our opinion and as stated earlier, as only interim reliefs had been prayed for against respondent No.8, the amendment in the prayer clause in so far as respondent No.8 is concerned is disallowed. In the light of above, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. Amendment along with prayer clauses are allowed except the relief against the respondent No.8 in prayer clause (c) and (j). The name of respondent No.8 be struck off from the said prayer clauses. 2. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. 3. The respondents, if advised, to file their rejoinder to the amended petition within two weeks thereafter. 4. Place the matter on board for admission on 12th January,2009. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I. REBELLO,J.)