( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION USJ CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 251 OF 2009 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 251 OF 2009 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 251 OF 2009 IN IN IN SUIT NO.3542 OF 2006 SUIT NO.3542 OF 2006 SUIT NO.3542 OF 2006 Mrs. Shamina Amirali Mukadam and Ors. ..Plaintiffs V/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ..Defendant ...... Mr. Ashwin Shankar for the plaintiff Mr. Girish Desai i/by M/s. Kartikeya & Associates for the defendants ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th February, 2009 DATED : 25th February, 2009 DATED : 25th February, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. According to the plaintiffs they carried out a joint venture arrangement by which Shipping business was carried on and the name of ship was ( 2 ) "Fazal-E-Abbas". According to the plaintiffs the said vessel was lost and that is how the insurance claim was lodged against the defendant, which was declined by the defendant and hence suit came to be filed by plaintiff No.1 as well as plaintiff No.2 for called of recovery of compensation from the insurance company. 2. Plaintiff No.1 claimed that he was indigent. Similarly, plaintiff No.2 claimed that she was indigent. Claim of the plaintiff No.1 was granted whereas claim of plaintiff No.2 was rejected. Accordingly, plaintiff No.2 has paid the Court fees by contending that plaintiff No.2 had 10% share in the joint venture agreement and, therefore, Court fee to the extent of 10% is payable based on the 10% share. 3. At one stage, question of payment of Court fees and sharing of the same between the plaintiff No.1 and 2 was taken up for hearing and arguments were heard and the matter was posted for Judgment. As the Court was ready to dictate the Judgment, Counsel for the plaintiffs wanted to take out chamber summons for amendment of the plaint. Since the request was made before the Judgment the request was granted and plaintiffs thereafter have taken out the present chamber summons. ( 3 ) 4. The plaintiffs wanted to amend the prayer only and call upon the defendant No.1 to pay plaintiff No.1 90% of total claim namely 1 Crore 25 lakhs and plaintiff No.2 to the extent of 10% of 1 Crore 25 lakhs. 5. I have heard Counsel for both the sides. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiffs have sought amendment to the prayer clause based on the joint venture arrangement and share of the plaintiff No.1 to the extent of 90% and plaintiff No.2 to the extent of 10%. According to counsel for the plaintiffs the prayer would represent the respective share of the respective plaintiff and hence the amendment is necessary. 6. Counsel for the defendant dwelled on the nature of amendment and according to him such an amendment ought not to be granted. According to him a prayer cannot be granted so as to grant relief to a plaintiff in a particular proportion and to the other plaintiff in a particular proportion. He submitted that the amendment is misconceived and cannot be granted. 7. I have perused the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons in which the amendment is sought. The ( 4 ) question of payment of Court fees by plaintiff No.2 is pending before the Court. The plaintiffs claim that the joint venture agreement consists of proportion of 90% to 10% and on that basis plaint is sought to be amended. 8. Considering the fact that the suit is filed for recovery of compensation on the ground that the ship is lost, the prayer will have to be considered in totality of the circumstances and a decree against the defendant can be passed if the plaintiffs are successful in making out the case that under the policy, they are entitled to recover compensation from the defendant-Insurance Company. 9. In my view, once more than one person come together and seek monetary reliefs, certainly the said monetary reliefs can be granted to the both the plaintiffs. The relief in terms of each of the plaintiff based on the so called share in the joint venture agreement cannot be granted. If such a relief is granted, it would create complications at the time of execution of the decree. If at all a decree is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, it is quite possible that the plaintiff No.1 may like to execute the decree against the defendant whereas the plaintiff No.2 may not like to execute the same against the ( 5 ) defendant. In such case, there would be part execution of the decree and other part of the decree would not be executed. Civil procedure does not imagine the situation where a decree can be executed in part and qua each plaintiff. If the Court passes a decree against the defendant, it is passed against the defendant and in favour of plaintiffs as a whole. 10. In my view, the scheme suggested by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted even though there would be a joint agreement and there would be arrangement with reference to shares of 90% and 10% which are the shares held by the respective persons as an arrangement between themselves Defendants will be answerable to both the plaintiffs taken together and hence the amendment can not be granted. 11. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, in the affidavit in support of chamber summons except reiterating that the amendment is necessary in the interest of justice no justification is made out for grant of amendment. 12. Since the amendment is rejected on the technical ground, I do not want to saddle the plaintiffs with the costs of this chamber summons. Hence, the order. ( 6 ) ORDER ORDER ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Arguments as regards payment of proper Court fees are already submitted. The matter is now posted for Judgment of 27th February, 2009 at 11.00 am. First on board for dictation of the Judgment on the question of payment of Court fees. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)