1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.962 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1059 OF 1982 Mrs.Pushpa Murlidhar Chhabria ..Plaintiff V/s. Mrs.Kamala Baldev Chhabria & ors ..Defendants Ms.Sheetal Shah i/b.Mehta & Girdharlal, Advocate, for the plaintiff Mr.U.J.Makhija, Advocate, for the defendant Nos.1, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) Mr.R.C.Nichani, Advocate, for the defendant Nos.4 to 7 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. . By the above Chamber Summons, the applicant/plaintiff is seeking amendment to the plaint in terms of the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. The amendment sought is to the extent of claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,50,00/- per month. The applicant/plaintiff has filed this suit seeking partition of a plot of land allegedly purchased by her along with the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are now deceased and representated by the heirs. 2. The suit is of the year 1982. The parties have completed 2 their pleadings and the matter was sent to the Commissioner for recording the evidence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that though the Commissioner has been appointed, no progress has been made in the matter of recording evidence and the mandate of the Commissioner has come to an end. 3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the parties have completed their pleadings and the matter was sent to the Commissioner for recording the evidence. There is no justifiable reason forthcoming as to why the amendment has been moved at this point of time. If the amendment is allowed, it would result in turning the clock back. It would also militate against the well settled principles applicable whilst considering an application for amendment. In that view of the matter, the Chamber Summons cannot be allowed and is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 3