IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 111 of 2008 SUMMONS No. 111 of 2008 SUMMONS No. 111 of 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT No.329 of 1981. No.329 of 1981. No.329 of 1981. Central Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970,having its Head Office at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021 and a branch Office at Delisle Road, Sitaram Mills Compound, Chinchpokli, Bombay 400 011. .. .. PLAINTIFF. VERSUS 1. The Sion Bakers & Confectioners Private Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business at A-152, Laxmi Baug, Kala Killa, Bombay-400 022. 2. T.N.M. Arunachalam of India Inhabitant residing at Ramchandrapuram Pudukottai, District Tamil Nadu - 622 505. 3. Keki S. Siganpuria, of Indian Inhabitant, residing at Tata Mills Co-operative Housing Society, Bldg No.1A, Flat No. 23, Parel, Bombay - 400 012. 4. Taj Mohamed Rahimbux of Indian Inhabitant residing at Azad Nagar, Jasmine Road, Dharavi, Mahim Bombay 400 017. ..DEFENDANTS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 05.03.2008. 05.03.2008. 05.03.2008. Mr Mr Mr V. K. Nair i/b Little & Co. Advocate for the V. K. Nair i/b Little & Co. Advocate for the V. K. Nair i/b Little & Co. Advocate for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff. Plaintiff. Mr Mr Mr Ajay Panicker, Advocate for Defendant No.3. Ajay Panicker, Advocate for Defendant No.3. Ajay Panicker, Advocate for Defendant No.3. ( 2 ) P.C.:-. P.C.:-. P.C.:-. ------- ------- ------- 1. Heard. 2. By this chamber summons, defendant No.3 seeks amendment to the written statement. In this case, the evidence was recorded on 19.12.2007 and 17.1.2008. On the same day, the defendant was also examined. During the course of evidence, defendant no.3 was not allowed to bring evidence on record which was travelling beyond the scop of pleadings, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ram Ram Sarup Sarup Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, A.I.R. A.I.R. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1242 and D.M. Deshpande and 1987 S.C. 1242 and D.M. Deshpande and 1987 S.C. 1242 and D.M. Deshpande and others others others vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (dead) by vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (dead) by vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (dead) by L.Rs. L.Rs. L.Rs. and others, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1464 and others, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1464 and others, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1464. 3. Defendant No.3 has,now, moved this chamber summons for amendment after completion of the evidence on 25.1.2008 so as to justify his attempt to lead evidence which was disallowed by this Court for want of pleadings. An attempt to amend written statement is nothing but malafide ( 3 ) attempt on the part of the defence. In view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Gajanan Gajanan Gajanan Krishnaji Krishnaji Krishnaji Bapat and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Bapat and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Bapat and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe Meghe Meghe and others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. and others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. and others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2284, chamber summons cannot be allowed, wherein wherein wherein the Apex Court has observed, as under:- "In the first place, the High Court ought not to have allowed evidence to be led by the election petitioners which was beyond the pleadings of the parties for no amount of evidence can cure a defect in the pleadings, but it was all the more improper for the trial court to have allowed the pleadings to be amended so as to be brought in confirmity with the evidence already led in the case." (Emphasis supplied) 5. In the result,this chamber summons is rejected. Suit to proceed in accordance with law. (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA,J.) DAGA,J.) DAGA,J.)