:1: :1: :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 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.426 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.871 OF 1981 The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. .. Plaintiffs. Vs. Mahalaxmi Fibre & Industries Ltd. & Anr. .. Defendants. Mr.V.A.Mahajan with Ms.P.Jain i/b Divekar & Co. for the plaintiffs. Mr.Shailesh Shah with Ms.Saumya Srikrishna i/b B.Munim & Co. for defendant no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint in terms of the schedule. Learned counsel for the defendants opposed the prayers on two grounds. Firstly, the application is not bonafide, and secondly, plea of waiver, which is being introduced by way of an amendment, is barred by limitation. Insofar as the second ground of objection is concerned, it need not be considered at this stage since the issue of limitation can be kept open. 3. Counsel for the defendants invited my attention to the affidavit in support of the chamber summons to contend that the statement to the effect that the plaintiffs were not aware about the :2: :2: :2: developments that took place in pursuance of the order passed in Suit No.684 of 1977 at Calcutta is not only incorrect but to seek an amendment at this stage, by making such averments, clearly demonstrates that it is not bonafide and, therefore, deserves to be rejected outright. Further, he invited my attention to the reply affidavit and letters annexed thereto and submitted that it clearly demonstrates that they had knowledge of all the developments that took place at Calcutta prior to filing of the present suit. The plaintiffs in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit have stated that subsequent events, as reflected in the schedule and the reply affidavit, have come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs at New Mumbai office after suit no.684 of 1977, filed in Calcutta High Court, was transferred to Bombay High Court and the papers in respect thereof were received by them from their Calcutta office recently. 4. I have perused the affidavit filed by the parties and the Schedule of amendment. It may be true that the plaintiffs office at Calcutta had knowledge about the developments that took place in pursuance of the order in the suit filed there even prior to filing of the present suit. Admittedly, the present suit was filed in 1981 by the Bombay office. The explanation offered by the plaintiffs in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons is that :3: :3: :3: the events/developments at Calcutta have come to their knowledge only when Suit Nos.683 and 684 of 1977 (renumbered as 936 and 937 of 2005 respectively) filed in Calcutta High Court, were transferred to Bombay High Court and the papers in connection therewith were received by the plaintiffs’ office at New Mumbai. Admittedly, that happened very recently. This explanation, in my opinion, does not appear to be improbable and, therefore, I am inclined to allow them to amend the suit in terms of the Schedule. I am satisfied that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the amendment, as prayed, is allowed. The suit has yet not reached the stage of framing issues. The order dated 29.1.2008 passed in the present suit and in suit no.1135 of 1980 show that till 29.1.2008 the written statement was not filed by the defendants. In the circumstances, this chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The plaintiffs to carry out amendment in terms of the schedule within a period of three weeks from today and serve a copy of the amended plaint to the advocates for the defendants within a week therefrom. It is open for the defendants to file their additional written statement, if they so desire, within ten weeks from today. The issue of limitation is kept open. The Chamber Summons is disposed of. Suit to appear on board after 10 weeks under caption "for issues". :4: :4: :4: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)