1 chs-1724-10 in ss-4851-00 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1724 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.4851 OF 2000 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Credential Finance Ltd. ....Defendant And Videocon Industries Ltd. ....Respondent Mr. A.H.Modi i/b JMB Partners for the Plaintiff Mr. Dharam Sharn i/b M/s. Dharam & Co. for the Defendants Mr.R.D.Soni i/b M/s. Ram & Co. for the Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2011. P.C. :- 1 The Plaintiff is allowed to substitute the schedule to the Chamber Summons by the schedule handed in today. 2 By the above Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint in terms of the schedule. The Plaintiff seeks to join the Respondent to the Chamber Summons as a party Defendant to the said Suit and make consequential amendment in the Plaint. 3 The said amendment according to the Plaintiff is necessitated in view of the Letter dated 10-11-2009 addressed to the Plaintiff by one 2 chs-1724-10 in ss-4851-00 MCS Ltd. who are the Registrars of the Respondent Company. The Plaintiff has been pledged three lac shares of the Respondent Company by the Defendant Company as a security for the loan of Rs.8,97,24,804/-, which has been availed of by the Defendant Company from the Plaintiff. The above Summary suit has been filed for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 8,97,24,804/-. The principal amount along with interest was to be paid by the Plaintiff within 12 months, on default the Plaintiff sought to enforce the security of three lacs shares which were pledged by the Defendant Company. As indicated above, the Registrars of the Respondent Company have made certain requisitions on the Plaintiff by the said letter dated 10-11-2009. According to the Plaintiff, the amendments are necessitated as the Respondent Company is refusing to transfer the pledged shares which are the security in the hands of the Plaintiff. A perusal of the amendments as contained in the schedule would disclose that the amendments proposed are not in sync with the Suit which is a money suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Even the amendments proposed are in some way contradictory to each other as in one paragraph the Plaintiff seeks declaration of their being a valid pledge, whereas in the other paragraphs the Plaintiff seeks its enforcement. It is required to be noted that there is no lis between the Plaintiff and the Respondent Company. In fact, as contended by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant and the Respondent Company, if the amendments are permitted the suit would travel beyond the scope of order XXXVII. The reliance of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on Sections 176 and 180 of the Contract Act is misplaced in the facts of the present case as the 3 chs-1724-10 in ss-4851-00 Plaintiff is required to first comply with the requisitions made in the said letter dated 10-11-2009. Even if the Registrars of the Respondent Company thereafter refuse to transfer the shares in question, the Plaintiff would have a remedy of approaching the Regulatory Authority in that behalf. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Respondent can neither be a necessary or proper party to the above Suit. 5 The Chamber Summons is, therefore, rejected. (R.M.Savant, J.)