((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1388 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.2670 OF 2005 Jamilabai Abdul Latif Haju Plaintiff versus Arvind Eknath Mandar & another Defendants Ms.Varsha Palav for plaintiff. None for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th June 2006 PC : 1. Heard Mrs.Palav for the plaintiff. Perused the affidavit of service filed by the plaintiff. The Chamber Summons has been duly served on the advocate appearing for the defendants. 2. The suit is for possession of the premises from which the plaintiff has been allegedly dispossessed without her consent and by force. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the suit premises have been ((-2-)) described in the plaint but particulars pertaining thereto were not set out in details as a result of which the ad-interim order passed in her favour was vacated by the Division Bench. Now, she seeks to incorporate better particulars with regard to the premises and also annex a sketch. 4. In my view, it would be for the Court to decide as to whether particulars are adequate and enough as also meet the requirements of law. However, by mere incorporation thereof, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants and it would be open for them to still contend that the premises having not been described, the suit must fail. Reserving all such pleas, present Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks. Amended copy of plaint to be served within four weeks thereafter. Written statement/additional written statement to be filed within 12 weeks thereafter. Needless to state that all contentions on merits of the controversy are expressly kept open. There shall be no order as to costs. ((-3-)) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)