*1* Chs.1504-09 in s.3420-08-904 pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1504 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.3402 OF 2008 M/s. SIFA Constructions & Ors. ... Plaintiffs -Versus- Jitendra Shyamji Gada ... Defendant -And- Arif Haji Miyan Shaikh ... Respondent (Interveners) Mr. N.K. Mudnaney, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Defendant. .............. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 5th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. Chamber Summons No.1504/2009 was placed for dismissal today. However, Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff apologizes for his absence on the earlier occasion and proceeded to argue chamber summons. Learned advocate appearing for defendant prays for time to file affidavit-in-reply. This chamber summons has been filed more than 2 years back in this court and duly served on the defendant. The defendant had ample time to file affidavit to oppose the prayer in the *2* Chs.1504-09 in s.3420-08-904 chamber summons. In these circumstances and when the service report indicates that copy of the chamber summons has been duly served on the defendant in May, 2011, the adjournment is refused. 2. After hearing both sides and perusing with their assistance the chamber summons and the affidavit in support so also in the schedule of the proposed amendment, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment will not, in any manner prejudice or take away any right of the defendant or valuable defence as contended. After perusing the plaint and the written statement carefully, I am of the opinion that there appears to be no dispute that the plaintiff no.2 and one another had executed the development agreement with the defendant. Now what the plaintiff proposes to delete is any reference to a partnership firm which is said to have executed this agreement and it is contended that the plaintiff is a sole proprietor of a construction and development firm viz. M/s. Sifa Construction. It is not a partnership firm but a sole proprietorship concern according to the plaintiff. 3. Even after the amendment, it will be open for the defendant to file additional written statement and urge what the plaintiff has done by an amendment does not in any manner alter the earlier position and the suit is not maintainable even after amendment. They can raise the objection that the suit was originally filed by partnership firm which is not registered and now any reference to the firm being deleted does not mean that the firm had no title to the property and could not have been executed Development Agreement in favour of the defendant. That defence and the plea of maintainability of the suit based on the status of the plaintiff is still open. Therefore, keeping open the objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit and the merits of the claim of the plaintiff, this chamber summons *3* Chs.1504-09 in s.3420-08-904 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Amended plaint be served within a period of two weeks thereafter. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)