1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.910 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2461 OF 2005 Mukesh Lalchand Talreja & Anr. : Plaintiffs. Versus Smt.Mona Ashok Manial & ors. : Defendants. Mr.G.D.Utangale for the Plaintiffs. Mr.J.S.Kini for the Defendants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : OCTOBER 20, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Chamber Summons, the Applicants/Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the Palint in terms of the Schedule which is annexed to the Chamber summons. 2. The amendment is sought as regards deletion of the date “24.8.2005” appearing in Exhibit B to the Plaint which is a letter addressed by Smt.Lajabai Manial to the Secretary, Avadhoot Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. Dahisar. 2 3. The subject matter of the above Suit No.2461 of 2005 and the Suit No.2711 of 2005 is the flat bearing No.A-16 in Building No.A- 2, Avadhoot Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Avadhoot Nagar, Dahisar (East), Bombay 400 068. The Applicants/Plaintiffs have filed the above Suit No.2461 of 2005 for specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd October 1998. In the said suit, the document in respect of which the deletion of the date “24.8.2005” is sought, is at Exhibit-B. The Defendants have filed the suit being Suit No.2711 of 2005. 4. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in their respective suits filed Notices of Motion for interim reliefs, pending the said suits filed by them. In the Notice of Motion filed by the Defendants being Notice of Motion 2990 of 2005, the Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of the suit flat and the Applicants abovenamed were appointed as agents of the Court Receiver on payment of royalty. The Notice of Motion filed by the Applicants/Plaintiffs, being Notice of Motion No.2998 of 2005, was rejected. Whilst rejecting the said Notice of Motion, the learned Single Judge has made 3 observation as regards the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd October 1998 and in the process has also made certain observations in respect of the said document (Exhibit-B to the Plaint). The matter was, therefore, carried in Appeal by the Applicants/Plaintiffs, being Appeal Nos.497 of 2007 and 498 of 2007, against the orders passed in the said two Notices of Motion, the said Appeals came to be disposed off by permitting the Applicants/Plaintiffs to move the learned Single Judge for a review of the orders passed in the said Notices of Motion. 5. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Appeal Court, the Applicants/Plaintiffs have filed a Review Application which is as yet pending. It appears that the Applicants/Plaintiffs have also filed a Chamber Summons, being Chamber Summons No.1480 of 2008, inter alia for various reliefs but primarily questioning the royalty fixed for the flat in question. The said Chamber Summons is also as yet pending. 4 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs that the date mentioned in Exhibit-B is on account of mistake or inadvertence as the original of the said letter to which the attention of the Court is drawn does not bear the said date and, therefore, the Applicants/Plaintiffs should be granted permission to delete the said date appearing on the said Exhibit-B. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Defendants that the issue in the Chamber Summons is not as innocuous as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the Defendants draws my attention to the said Exhibit-B. As per the averments made in the Plaint in Para 4, the date “24.8.2005” has been written in hand and has, therefore, been initialed in the side margin of the said Paragraph. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the Defendants that one does not know the reason as to why the said date has been mentioned. 8. Having considered the rival contentions as also considering 5 the conspectus of facts as narrated above, in my view, there is substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Defendants that the matter is not as innocuous as is sought to be contended on behalf of the Applicants/Plaintiffs and that the Applicants/Plaintiffs having prosecuted the said Notice of Motion filed by them on the basis of the said document, in my view, therefore, cannot be allowed to delete the said date at this stage. The Chamber Summons is accordingly rejected. 9. However, it would be open for the Applicants/Plaintiffs to lead such evidence as is permissible in law in respect of their contention at the trial of the said suit. [R.M.SAVANT, J]