1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 589 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1823 OF 2008 Dilip Jamunadas Giyanani & Ors. ....Plaintiffs Versus Kumar Bhatija & Ors. ....Defendants Mr. Ajit Karwande a/w. Ms. Kavita Lalwan, Advocates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. H. Toor i/b. M/s. Kumana & Co., Advocates for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. Rajni Iyer Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., Advocates for Defendant Nos. 6 to 8. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by the Plaintiffs for amendment to the plaint in terms of Exhibit "A" to the chamber summons. By the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs want to introduce prayer (f)(i) which reads as follows: " That the Agreement referred to at page nos. 155 to 191 entered into with the Plaintiffs be held valid and subsisting as well as this Hon'ble Court may direct specific performance of the same". 2 3. At pages 155 to 191, the Plaintiff has annexed two documents. First document at page 155 is titled as "Agreement of Allotment" and the second document at page 183 is titled as "Supplementary to Agreement of Allotment". Admittedly, the Plaintiffs are not party to these agreements. These documents are referred in paragraph 26 of the plaint. The Plaintiffs themselves, in that paragraph, described these documents as draft copy of the agreement. Thus, in the absence of any execution, the Plaintiffs cannot claim specific performance. This amendment is also liable to be rejected in the absence of any pleadings on the part of the Plaintiffs, about readiness and willingness under the provisions of section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The amendment therefore, cannot be allowed and same is rejected. The chamber summons is accordingly, rejected. (R. V. MORE, J.)